RHD genotyping to resolve weak and discrepant RhD patient phenotypes

15Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: We instituted RHD genotyping in our transfusion service for obstetrical patients and transfusion candidates. We sought to examine how RHD genotyping resolved weak or discrepant automated microplate direct agglutination (MDA) RhD phenotypings and impacted needs for Rh Immune Globulin (RhIG) and D-negative RBCs. Study Design and Methods: We investigated RhD phenotypes with equivocal or reagent-discrepant automated MDA (Immucor, Norcross, GA), weak-2+ immediate-spin tube typings, historically discrepant RhD typings, or D+ typings with anti-D. We performed microarray RHD genotyping (RHD BeadChip, Immucor BioArray Solutions, Warren, NJ). Patients were managed as D+ with weak-D types 1, 2, and 3, and as D-negative with all other results. Results: Our weak-D prevalence was 0.14%. Among 138 patients (73 obstetrics, 65 transfusion candidates), 38% had weak-D types 1, 2 or 3, 25% weak partial type 4.0, 21% other partial-D variant alleles, and 15% no variant detected. One novel allele with weak partial type 4.0 variants plus c.150T>C (Val50Val) was discovered. Weak D types 1, 2 or 3 were identified in 66% (48/73) of Whites versus 3% (2/62) of diverse ethnic patients (p

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Barriteau, C. M., Lindholm, P. F., Hartman, K., Sumugod, R. D., & Ramsey, G. (2022). RHD genotyping to resolve weak and discrepant RhD patient phenotypes. Transfusion, 62(11), 2194–2199. https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.17145

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free