Hermelin, Daniela

Abstract Objectives The red blood cell (RBC) D antigen is highly immunogenic, and anti-D alloimmunization can cause hemolytic transfusion reactions and hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. This study examined how RhD-negative patients who required packed RBCs (pRBCs) were handled during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether policies and practices on RhD-positive pRBC allocation to RhD-negative patients changed. Methods The Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB) Clinical Hemotherapy Subsection distributed a 17-question survey to physician AABB members to elucidate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the policies and practices governing the provision of RhD-positive pRBCs to RhD-negative patients. Results There were 215 respondents who started the survey, but only 104 answered all the questions. Most institutional policies (130/155 [83.87%]) and personal practices (100/126 [79.37%]) on pRBC selection did not change during the COVID-19 pandemic. The practice of switching back to RhD-negative pRBCs after administration of RhD-positive pRBCs is variable. More than half of respondents (56/104 [53.85%]) reported offering Rh immunoglobulin to any Rh-negative patients who received RhD-positive pRBCs. Conclusions Despite RhD-negative pRBC supply challenges, most institutional policies and personal practices on when to provide RhD-positive pRBCs to RhD-negative patients did not change during the pandemic.

AbstractBackgroundCurrent Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB) standards require transfusion services to have a policy on Rh immune globulin (RhIG) immunoprophylaxis for when RhD‐negative patients are exposed to RhD‐positive red cells. This is a survey of AABB‐accredited transfusion services in the United States (US) regarding institutional policies and practices on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD‐negative patients receive RhD‐positive (i.e., RhD‐incompatible) packed red blood cell (pRBC) and platelet transfusions.ResultsApproximately half of the respondents (50.4%, 116/230) have policies on RhIG administration after RhD‐incompatible pRBC and platelet transfusions, while others had policies for only pRBC (13.5%, 31/230) or only platelet (17.8%, 41/230) transfusions, but not both. In contrast, 18.3% (42/230) report that their institution has no written policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD‐incompatible transfusions. Most institutions (70.2%, 99/141) do not have policies addressing safety parameters to mitigate the risk of hemolysis associated with the high dose of RhIG required to prevent RhD alloimmunization after RhD‐incompatible pRBC transfusions.DiscussionWith approximately half of US AABB‐accredited institutions report having policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after both RhD‐incompatible pRBC and platelet transfusions, some institutions may not be in compliance with AABB standards. Further, most with policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD‐incompatible pRBC transfusion do not have written safeguards to mitigate the risk of hemolysis associated with the high dose of RhIG required.ConclusionThis survey underscores the diverse and inadequate institutional policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD exposure in Rh‐negative patients via transfusion. This observation identifies an opportunity to improve transfusion safety.