Blood Group Antigen Matching Influence on Gestational Outcomes (AMIGO) study.

BACKGROUND: Red blood cell (RBC) antigen matching policies to prevent alloimmunization in females of childbearing potential (FCP) vary between centers. To inform transfusion centers responsible for making decisions about matching policies for FCPs, the causal stimulus of the antibodies implicated in severe hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN) must be determined. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a multinational retrospective study of women with offspring affected by severe HDFN requiring neonatal exchange transfusion and/or intrauterine transfusion. Mothers treated at centers that provide extended antigen-negative RBCs (MATCH, five centers) and those that do not (NoMATCH, nine centers) were compared. RESULTS: A total of 293 mothers had at least one affected pregnancy: 179 at MATCH centers and 114 at NoMATCH centers. Most alloimmunization (83%) was attributed to previous pregnancy: 3% to transfusion (two cases at MATCH, six at NoMATCH centers) and 14% undetermined (both antecedent transfusion and pregnancy). Only 50 mothers had received transfusions; 13 had HDFN due to anti-K at MATCH and four at NoMATCH centers. Most (12/13, 92%) of the anti-K HDFN cases at MATCH centers had K+ paternal antigen status. Mothers at the MATCH centers do not appear to be protected from HDFN due to K, C, c, and E antibodies, although the low number of FCPs who received transfusions precluded drawing firm conclusions. CONCLUSION: The causal stimulus of antibodies that cause HDFN is predominantly from previous pregnancy. Although extended RBC matching for FCPs may impart some protection from allosensitization, we were unable to show a positive effect, possibly because matching policies are not uniform and there was a small number of mothers who previously received transfusions.

Transfusion premedication to prevent acute transfusion reactions: a retrospective observational study to assess current practices.

BACKGROUND: The use of premedication to prevent acute transfusion reactions has been estimated to occur in 50% to 80% of transfusions. While this practice has some biologic rationale, few clinical studies have been performed to assess the efficacy of this practice, and the methodologic quality of these studies is variable. The primary objective of this study was to describe current practices regarding transfusion premedication to prevent febrile nonhemolytic transfusion reactions, mild allergic transfusion reactions, and transfusion-associated circulatory overload. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted an observational retrospective chart review of a stratified random sample of 324 transfusions that took place over a 6-month period. Data were abstracted from medical records and then scanned into a database for analysis. We calculated inter- and intraobserver agreement on key abstracted data to estimate assessment error. A two-phase adjudication process was used to determine whether or not medications given before the time of each transfusion were intended as premedications. RESULTS: Of the transfusions sampled, 1.6% (95% confidence interval, 0.4-3.9) were associated with premedication medications to prevent an acute transfusion reaction. Inter- and intraobserver reliability in the abstraction of key data points was good. Good agreement in adjudicator classification of outcomes was achieved only when adjudicators were provided with patient source documents. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication use was infrequent and much less common than previously reported. Improved methods of capturing transfusion premedication, which likely require prospective assessments, are needed for future research studies.