Advertisement
JOGC

No. 133-Prevention of Rh Alloimmunization

      Abstract

      Objective

      To provide guidelines on use of anti-D prophylaxis to optimize prevention of rhesus (Rh) alloimmunization in Canadian women.

      Outcomes

      Decreased incidence of Rh alloimmunization and minimized practice variation with regards to immunoprophylaxis strategies.

      Evidence

      The Cochrane Library and MEDLINE were searched for English-language articles from 1968 to 200 I, relating to the prevention of Rh alloimmunization. Search terms included: Rho(D) immune globulin, Rh iso- or aile-immunization, anti-D, anti-Rh, WinRho, Rhogam, and pregnancy. Additional publications were identified from the bibliographies of these articles. All study types were reviewed. Randomized controlled trials were considered evidence of highest quality, followed by cohort studies. Key individual studies on which the principal recommendations are based are referenced. Supporting data for each recommendation is briefly summarized with evaluative comments and referenced.

      Values

      The evidence collected was reviewed by the Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Genetics Committees of The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) and quantified using the Evaluation of Evidence guidelines developed by the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Exam.

      Recommendations

      • 1.
        Anti-D lg 300 µg IM or IV should be given within 72 hours of delivery to a postpartum nonsensitized Rh-negative woman delivering an Rh-positive infant. Additional anti-D lg may be required for fetomaternal hemorrhage (FMH) greater than 15 ml of fetal red blood cells (about 30 ml of fetal blood). Alternatively, anti-D lg 120 µg IM or IV may be given within 72 hours of delivery, with testing and additional anti-D lg given for FMH over 6 ml of fetal red blood cells (12 mL fetal blood) (I-A).
      • 2.
        If anti-D is not given within 72 hours of delivery or other potentially sensitizing event, anti-D should be given as soon as the need is recognized, for up to 28 days after delivery or other potentially sensitizing event (III-B).
      • 3.
        There is poor evidence regarding inclusion or exclusion of routine testing for postpartum FMH, as the cost-benefit of such testing in Rh mothers at risk has not been determined (III-C).
      • 4.
        Anti-D lg 300 µg should be given routinely to all Rh-negative nonsensitized women at 28 weeks' gestation when fetal blood type is unknown or known to be Rh-positive. Alternatively, 2 doses of 100–120 µg may be given (120 µg being the lowest currently available dose in Canada): one at 28 weeks and one at 34 weeks (I-A).
      • 5.
        All pregnant women (D-negative or D-positive) should be typed and screened for alloantibodies with an indirect antiglobulin test at the first prenatal visit and again at 28 weeks (III-C).
      • 6.
        When paternity is certain, Rh testing of the baby's father may be offered to all Rh-negative pregnant women to eliminate unnecessary blood product administration (III-C).
      • 7.
        A woman with “weak D” (also known as Du-positive) should not receive anti-D (III-D).
      • 8.
        A repeat antepartum dose of Rh immune globulin is generally not required at 40 weeks, provided that the antepartum injection was given no earlier than 28 weeks' gestation (III-C).
      • 9.
        After miscarriage or threatened abortion or induced abortion during the first 12 weeks of gestation, nonsensitized D-negative women should be given a minimum anti-D of 120 µg. After 12 weeks' gestation, they should be given 300 µg (II-3B).
      • 10.
        At abortion, blood type and antibody screen should be done unless results of blood type and antibody screen during the pregnancy are available, in which case antibody screening need not be repeated (III-B).
      • 11.
        Anti-D should be given to nonsensitized D-negative women following ectopic pregnancy. A minimum of 120 µg should be given before 12 weeks' gestation and 300 µg after 12 weeks' gestation (III-B).
      • 12.
        Anti-D should be given to nonsensitized D-negative women following molar pregnancy because of the possibility of partial mole. Anti-D may be withheld if the diagnosis of complete mole is certain (III-B).
      • 13.
        At amniocentesis, anti-D 300 µg should be given to nonsensitized D-negative women (II-3B).
      • 14.
        Anti-D should be given to nonsensitized D-negative women following chorionic villous sampling, at a minimum dose of 120 µg during the first 12 weeks' gestation, and at a dose of 300 µg after 12 weeks' gestation (II-B).
      • 15.
        Following cordocentesis, anti-D lg 300 µg should be given to nonsensitized D-negative women (II-3B).
      • 16.
        Quantitative testing for FMH may be considered following events potentially associated with placental trauma and disruption of the fetomaternal interface (e.g., placental abruption, blunt trauma to the abdomen, cordocentesis, placenta previa with bleeding). There is a substantial risk of FMH over 30 ml with such events, especially with blunt trauma to the abdomen (III-B).
      • 17.
        Anti-D 120 µg or 300 µg is recommended in association with testing to quantitate FMH following conditions potentially associated with placental trauma and disruption of the fetomaternal interface (e.g., placental abruption, external cephalic version, blunt trauma to the abdomen, placenta previa with bleeding). If FMH is in excess of the amount covered by the dose given (6 mL or 15 mL fetal RBC), 10 µg additional anti-D should be given for every additional 0.5 mL fetal red blood cells. There is a risk of excess FMH, especially when there has been blunt trauma to the abdomen (III-B).
      • 18.
        Verbal or written informed consent must be obtained prior to administration of the blood product Rh immune globulin (III-C).

      Validation

      These guidelines have been reviewed by the MaternalFetal Medicine Committee and the Genetics Committee, with input from the Rh Program of Nova Scotia. Final approval has been given by the Executive and Council of The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada.

      Sponsors

      The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Urbaniak S.
        The scientific basis of antenatal prophylaxis.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998; Suppl 18: 11-18
        • Joseph K.
        • Kramer M.
        The decline of Rh hemolytic disease: should Rh prophylaxis get all the credit?.
        Am J Public Health. 1998; 88: 209-215
        • Bowman J.
        • Pollock J.
        Antenatal prophylaxis of Rh isoimmunization: 28 weeks gestation service programme.
        Can Med Assoc J. 1978; 118: 627-630
        • Armson B.A.
        • Parson M.L.
        The Rh program of Nova Scotia 1964–1994.
        Atlantic Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Halifax1995
        • Bowman J.
        • Pollock J.
        Failures of intravenous Rh immune globulin prophylaxis: an analysis for the reasons of such failures.
        Transf Med Rev. 1987; I: 101-112
        • Tovey L.
        • Townley A.
        • Stevenson B.
        • et al.
        The Yorkshire antenatal anti-D immunoglobulin trial in primigravidae.
        Lancet. 1983; 2: 244-246
        • Urbaniak S.
        Consensus conference on anti-D prophylaxis, April 7 & 8, 1997: final consensus statement of the Royal College of Edinburgh/Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
        Transfusion. 1998; 38: 97-99
        • Woolf S.H.
        • Battista R.N.
        • Angerson G.M.
        • et al.
        Canadian task force on the periodic health exam.
        Canada Communication Group, Ottawa1994: xxxvii
        • Crowther C.
        • Middleton P.
        Anti-D administration after childbirth for preventing Rhesus alloimmunization.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000; (CD000021; Oxford, Update Software)
        • Stern K.
        • Goodman H.
        • Berger M.
        Experimental iso-immunization to hemo-antigens in man.
        J Immunol. 1961; : 189-198
        • Hartwell E.
        Use of Rh immune globulin. ASCP Practice Parameter.
        Am J Clin Pathol. 1998; 110: 281-302
        • Trolle B.
        Prenatal Rh-immune globulin prophylaxis with 300 meg immune globulin anti-D in the 28th week of pregnancy.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1989; 68: 45-47
        • Maayan-Metzger A.
        • Schwartz T.
        • Sulkes J.
        • Merlob P.
        Maternal anti-D prophylaxis during pregnancy does not cause neonatal haemolysis.
        Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2001; 84: F60-2
        • Hong F.
        • Ruiz R.
        • Price H.
        • et al.
        Safety profile of WINHRO Anti-D.
        Sem Hematol. 1998; 35: 9-13
        • Canadian PharmacistsAssociation
        WinRho SDF™ Rh (D) immune globulin (human) passive immunizing agent.
        in: Compendium of pharmaceuticals and specialties (CPS). 36th ed. Canadian Pharmacists Association, Toronto2001: 1714-1716
        • Murdoch A.
        Irish mothers called for hepatitis C virus screening.
        Br J Med. 1994; 308: 613-614
        • Power J.
        • Lawlor E.
        • Davidson F.
        • et al.
        Hepatitis C viraemia in recipients of Irish intravenous anti-D immunoglobulin.
        Lancet. 1994; 344: 1166-1167
        • Bowman J.
        • Chown B.
        • Lewis M.
        • et al.
        Rh isoimmunization during pregnancy: antenatal prophylaxis.
        Can Med Assoc J. 1978; 118: 623-630
        • Bowman J.
        Preventing Rh sensitization during pregnancy.
        Perinat Care. 1978; 2: 24-32
        • Samson D.
        • Mollison P.
        Effect on primary Rh immunization of delayed administration anti-Rh.
        Immunology. 1975; 28: 349-357
        • Gorman J.
        • Freda V.
        • Pollack W.
        Prevention of sensitization to Rh with anti-Rh gamma globulin.
        Fred Proc. 1964; 23: 238
        • Bowman J.
        Antenatal suppression of Rh alloimmunization.
        Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1991; 34: 296-303
        • Bowman J.
        • Pollock J.
        Transplacental fetal haemorrhage after amniocentesis.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 66: 749-754
        • Sebring E.
        • Polesky H.
        Fetomaternal hemorrhage: incidence, risk factors, time of occurrence and clinical effects.
        Transfusion. 1990; 30: 344-357
        • Ness P.
        • Baldwin M.
        • Niebyl J.
        Clinical high-risk designation does not predict excess fetal-maternal hemorrhage.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987; 156: 54-58
        • Stedman C.
        • Baudin J.
        • White C.
        • et al.
        Use of the erythrocyte rosette test to screen for excessive fetomaternal hemorrhage in Rh negative women.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1986; 154: 1363-1369
        • Zipursky A.
        • Israels L.
        The pathogenesis and prevention of Rh immunization.
        Can Med Assoc J. 1967; 97: 1245-1257
        • Zipursky A.
        Rh hemolytic disease of the newborn -the disease eradicated by immunology.
        Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1977; 20: 759-772
      1. Mollison P. Engelfriet C. Contreras M. Haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn due to anti-Rh D (Rh D haemolytic disease). Blackwell Scientific Publications, Boston1993: 546-580
        • Bowman J.
        The prevention of Rh immunization.
        Transfus Med Rev. 1988; 2: 129-150
        • Jackson J.
        • Branch D.
        Gabbe S. Niebyl J. Simpson J. Isoimmunization in pregnancy. WB Saunders, New York1996: 899-932
        • Feldman N.
        • Skoll A.
        • Sibai B.
        The incidence of significant fetomaternal haemorrhage in patients undergoing cesarean section.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 163: 855-858
        • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
        Prevention of Rh D isoimmunization.
        ACOG Practice Bulletin. 1999
        • Snyder E.L.
        • Shoos Lipton K.
        Prevention of hemolytic disease of the newborn due to anti-D.
        in: Bulletin #98-2. American Association of Blood Banks, Bethesda (MD)1998: 1-6
        • Vengelen-TylerV
        Technical manual.
        American Association of Blood Banks, Bethesda (MD)1996: 12
        • Hadley A.
        • Kumpel B.
        The role of Rh antibodies in haemolytic disease of the newborn.
        Baillieres Clin Haematol. 1993; 6: 423-444
        • Robson S.
        • Lee D.
        • Urbaniak S.
        Anti-D immunoglobulin in RhD prophylaxis.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998; 105: 129-134
        • Beaulieu M.-D.
        Screening for D (Rh) sensitization in pregnancy.
        Canadian Guide to Clinical Preventive Health Care, 1994: 116-124
        • Diguiseppe C.
        Screening for D (Rh) incompatibility. US Preventive Services Task Force.
        Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. 1996
        • Crowther C.
        Anti-D administration in pregnancy for preventing Rhesus alloimmunization.
        (The Cochrane Library; Oxford, Update Software)2001
        • Hutchet J.
        • Dallemagne S.
        • Hutchet C.
        • et al.
        The antepartum use of anti-D immunoglobulin in rhesus negative women. Parallel evaluation of a multicentre study carried out in the region of Paris.
        J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1987; 16: 101-111
        • Weinstein L.
        Irregular antibodies causing hemolytic disease of the newborn: a continuing problem.
        Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1982; 25: 321-332
        • Bowman J.
        Creasy R. Resnik R. Hemolytic disease (erythroblastosis fetalis). WB Saunders Co., Philadelphia1999: 736-768
        • Barss V.
        • Frigoletto F.
        • Konugres A.
        The cost of irregular antibody screening.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 159: 428
        • Mitchell R.
        • Bowell P.
        • Letsky E.
        • de Silva M.
        • Whittle M.
        Guidelines for blood grouping and red cell antibody testing during pregnancy.
        Transfus Med. 1996; 6: 71-74
        • Mayne K.
        • Allen D.
        • Bowell P.
        “Partial D” women with anti-D alloimmunization in pregnancy.
        Clin Lab Haematol. 1991; 13: 239-244
        • Konugres A.
        • Polesky H.
        • Walker R.
        Rh immune globulin and the Rh-positive, D” variant mother.
        Transfusion. 1982; 22: 76-77
        • Domen R.
        Policies and procedures related to weak D phenotype testing and Rh immune globulin administration. Results from supplementary questions to the Comprehensive Transfusion Medicine Survey of the College of American Pathologists.
        Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000; 124: 1118-1121
        • Gorman J.
        Frigoletto F. Jewett J. Konugres A. New applications of Rh immune globulin: effect on protocols. GH Hall Medical Publishers, Boston1981: 199-210
        • Bergstrom H.
        • Nilsson L.
        • Nilsson L.
        • et al.
        Demonstration of Rh antigens in a 38-day-old fetus.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1967; 99: 130-133
        • Litwak O.
        • Taswell H.
        • Banner E.
        Fetal erythrocytes in maternal circulation after spontaneous abortion.
        J Am Med Assoc. 1970; 214: 531-534
        • De Crespigny L.
        • Davison G.
        Anti-D administration in early pregnancy: time for a new protocol.
        Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995; 35: 385-387
        • Von Stein G.
        • Munsick R.
        • Stiver K.
        • Ryder K.
        Fetomaternal haemorrhage in threatened abortion.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 79: 383-386
        • van'tVeer M.B.
        • Overbeeke M.A.
        • Geertzen H.G.
        • et al.
        The expression of Rh-D factor in human trophoblast.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984; 150: 1008-1010
      2. An assessment of the hazards of amniocentesis. Report to the Medical Research Council by their Working Party on Amniocentesis.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1978; 85: 1-41
        • Brambati B.
        • Guercilena S.
        • Bonacchi I.
        • et al.
        Fete-maternal transfusion after chorionic villus sampling: clinical implications.
        Hum Reprod. 1986; 1: 37-40
        • Bowman J.M.
        • Pollock J.M.
        • Peterson L.E.
        • et al.
        Fetomaternal haemorrhage following funipuncture: increase in severity of maternal red-cell alloimmuni:z;ation.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 84: 839-843
        • Marcus R.
        • Crewe-Brown H.
        • Krawitz S.
        • et al.
        Fetematernal hemorrhage following successful and unsuccessful attempts at external cephalic version.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1975; 82: 578-580
        • Nord E.
        • Blaschke E.
        • Green K.
        • et al.
        100 cases of external cephalic version with special reference to fetomaternal transfusion.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1989; 68: 55-58
        • Lau T.
        • Stock A.
        • Rogers M.
        Fetematernal hemorrhage after external cephalic version at term.
        Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995; 35: 173-174
        • Pearlman M.
        • Tintinalli J.
        • Lorenz R.
        Blunt trauma during pregnancy.
        N Engl J Med. 1990; 323: 1609-1613
        • Pollack W.
        • Ascari W.
        • Crispen J.
        • et al.
        Studies on Rh prophylaxis: II.
        Transfusion. 1971; II: 340-344
        • Manitoba Rh Program
        Manitoba guidelines for prenatal antibody screening: indications for administration of Rh immune globulin [newsletter].
        Coli Physicians Surg Manitoba. 1999; 35: 1