King, Karen E.

Context.— Modern RHD genotyping can be used to determine when patients with serologic weak D phenotypes have RHD gene variants at risk for anti-D alloimmunization. However, serologic testing, RhD interpretations, and laboratory management of these patients are quite variable. Objective.— To obtain interlaboratory comparisons of serologic testing, RhD interpretations, Rh immune globulin (RhIG) management, fetomaternal hemorrhage testing, and RHD genotyping for weak D-reactive specimens. Design.— We devised an educational exercise in which 81 transfusion services supporting obstetrics performed tube-method RhD typing on 2 unknown red blood cell challenge specimens identified as (1) maternal and (2) newborn. Both specimens were from the same weak D-reactive donor. The exercise revealed how participants responded to these different clinical situations. Results.— Of reporting laboratories, 14% (11 of 80) obtained discrepant immediate-spin reactions on the 2 specimens. Nine different reporting terms were used to interpret weak D-reactive maternal RhD types to obstetricians. In laboratories obtaining negative maternal immediate-spin reactions, 28% (16 of 57) performed unwarranted antiglobulin testing, sometimes leading to recommendations against giving RhIG. To screen for excess fetomaternal hemorrhage after a weak D-reactive newborn, 47% (34 of 73) of reporting laboratories would have employed a contraindicated fetal rosette test, risking false-negative results and inadequate RhIG coverage. Sixty percent (44 of 73) of laboratories would obtain RHD genotyping in some or all cases. Conclusions.— For obstetric and neonatal patients with serologic weak D phenotypes, we found several critical problems in transfusion service laboratory practices. We provide recommendations for appropriate testing, consistent immunohematologic terminology, and RHD genotype–guided management of Rh immune globulin therapy and RBC transfusions.

BACKGROUNDHydroxyethyl starch (HES) is reportedly associated with an increased risk of renal failure and death when used for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients. HES can be used during therapeutic leukocytapheresis (TL) procedures to enhance cell separation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of adverse events associated with HES during TL procedures.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSWe performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent TL with and without HES in the period 2009 to 2013 at six academic medical institutions.RESULTSA difference‐in‐difference regression analysis was used to estimate the mean change before and after TL in selected outcomes in the HES group relative to the average change in the non‐HES group. Selected outcomes included serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and white blood cell (WBC) count. A total of 195 patients who underwent 278 TL procedures were studied. We found no significant differences in serum creatinine levels and eGFR on Days 1 and 7 after TL procedure between patients who received and those who did not receive HES. The rate of adverse events and overall and early mortality were similar in both groups. Patients with acute myeloid leukemia who received HES had greater WBC reduction when HES was used. Additionally, patients who received HES had improvement in pulmonary leukostasis symptoms.CONCLUSIONHES, used at low doses during TL procedures, was not associated with adverse events previously ascribed to its use as a volume expander.