Amra23 Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 (edited) Emergency case of a cardiac malformation on a new born baby with 0+ ccDEEK- DAT=neg, mother 0+ CcDEeK- . 0+ ccDEEK- fresh blood not available.Only 10 days old blood with this phenotype. Which is the best option for transfusion for this baby (it will be needed for the cardiac extracorporeal circulation),10 days old blood with his phenotype or fresh blood (within 5 days) with a slightly different phenotype?If the second option is the one,which phenotype would be best in this case? This kind of patients tend to receive multiple transfusions after surgery. Edited June 14, 2019 by Amra23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Needs ★ Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 This is most certainly a decision for a clinician, although I do have some ideas myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amra23 Posted June 15, 2019 Author Share Posted June 15, 2019 (edited) Malcom,I would love to hear your ideas,please! My first option would be ccDEeK- if cross-matching is OK. Also I should say that the old unit of O ccDEEK- is not leucodepleted. But we do have leucoreduction filters. And about old units given to a new born..,is the high potassium levels the only concern? Edited June 15, 2019 by Amra23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Needs ★ Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 Well, the high potassium is undoubtedly a factor, in particular as it is a cardiac case. All units in the UK are leukodepleted, but I wouldn't have thought that "unleukodepleted" blood should be of too much concern in this case. The difference in the Rh type would be of no concern to me whatsoever. The baby's immune system would be immature, and so it is highly unlikely that the "foreign" Rh antigens would cause immunisation. Indeed, exposure to these "foreign" Rh antigens may be advantageous in a way, as there is the possibility, as this age, that these may lead to "accomodation", meaning that the baby may never produce antibodies against these antigens, but this has not been proved, as far as I know. John C. Staley, yan xia and Amra23 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amra23 Posted June 15, 2019 Author Share Posted June 15, 2019 Thank you so much,Malcom! Malcolm Needs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slsmith Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 We don't honor phenotypically matched blood on a newborn unless the baby has a positive antibody screen due to the mother's antibody. The product that is set up for the baby is fresh ( less than 5 days old), O =/O+(depending on the babies type), irradiated (same day), leukoreduced(comes that way from supplier) and hemoglobin S negative. yan xia, Malcolm Needs and Ward_X 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolyn swickard Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 How many of you are giving Hgb S neg (tested) blood to your neonates services? Any problems with not doing it? I know it is an AABB recommendation for neonates and we have been doing it, but are getting very mixed responses in the region on continuing it. Also, our regional supplier is noting anecdotal evidence that Hbg S positive units (for trait) will not generally flow though a leukoreduction filter - they fail the filtration step. Any feelings on this either way? We get one pediatric unit every 2-3 weeks and we must be able to use it for either small volume transfusions or the rare exchange transfusion. On 6/15/2019 at 3:39 AM, Malcolm Needs said: The difference in the Rh type would be of no concern to me whatsoever. The baby's immune system would be immature, and so it is highly unlikely that the "foreign" Rh antigens would cause immunisation. Indeed, exposure to these "foreign" Rh antigens may be advantageous in a way, as there is the possibility, as this age, that these may lead to "accomodation", meaning that the baby may never produce antibodies against these antigens, but this has not been proved, as far as I know. Malcolm - good post - I always wondered about babies and Rh Pos units. It is so difficult to get a CMV negative, Rh neg unit in this region (US southwest) that we have often thought about having an O Pos unit for pedi stock - never been brave enough to try it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Needs ★ Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 50 minutes ago, cswickard said: Malcolm - good post - I always wondered about babies and Rh Pos units. It is so difficult to get a CMV negative, Rh neg unit in this region (US southwest) that we have often thought about having an O Pos unit for pedi stock - never been brave enough to try it though. Ah cswickard, I was talking more about the C, c, E and e antigens, rather than the D antigen, which is much more immunogenic. Sorry, I should have made that distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabel Adams Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 58 minutes ago, cswickard said: How many of you are giving Hgb S neg (tested) blood to your neonates services? Any problems with not doing it? I know it is an AABB recommendation for neonates and we have been doing it, but are getting very mixed responses in the region on continuing it. Also, our regional supplier is noting anecdotal evidence that Hbg S positive units (for trait) will not generally flow though a leukoreduction filter - they fail the filtration step. Any feelings on this either way? We don't worry about Hgb S in neonates except for exchange transfusions for which we request it. I've heard the same about the LR filters but don't have true evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Needs ★ Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, Mabel Adams said: We don't worry about Hgb S in neonates except for exchange transfusions for which we request it. I've heard the same about the LR filters but don't have true evidence. From empirical, but unpublished evidence when we started to use them in the early 1990's (before our units were universally leukodepleted, we found this to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marilyn Plett Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 When we converted to 100% leuko-reduction, my former blood center found that Hgb S units did not leuko-reduce even if they passed through the filter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amra23 Posted June 18, 2019 Author Share Posted June 18, 2019 (edited) Very useful information,thanks to everyone responded here! Edited June 18, 2019 by Amra23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Banker Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 We generally wash older units of RBCs for ECMO. They still don't work quite as well (pH issues), but at least that takes care of the extracellular potassium. As has been mentioned, I would not worry overmuch about matching the baby's phenotype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Blumberg Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 Just to confuse things a bit, there is absolutely no evidence that fresher units of red cells, or hemoglobin AA units are superior for neonates (or anyone else). The potassium can be an issue, but some fresher units have very high potassiums as well. We define fresh for everyone as 21 days of storage or less. We wash transfusions for newborns in the ICU, or others with high potassium levels, which fixes the potassium issue (I realize this isn't feasible at many hospitals). But I would not worry overly much about storage duration. If concerned, measure the supernatant potassium in a few units and give the one that is lowest. All hospitals can readily measure potassium so why not do that if you are concerned? Storage duration is a poor surrogate for actually measuring potassium. As for CMV seronegative, it's totally unnecessary if the unit is leukoreduced. Not a shred of evidence that it helps and it may preselect for donors who are infected but pre-seroconversion. Save yourself the expense and aggravation and eliminate the use of CMV seronegative units, and convert to 100% leukoreduction if you haven't done that. There are randomized trial data and many observational studies showing the clinical benefits of leukoreduction, including fewer episodes of nosocomial infection, the major cause of hospital morbidity and mortality. Sermon over :). Marilyn Plett, Malcolm Needs, Mabel Adams and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolyn swickard Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 On 6/18/2019 at 8:49 AM, Neil Blumberg said: As for CMV seronegative, it's totally unnecessary if the unit is leukoreduced. Not a shred of evidence that it helps and it may preselect for donors who are infected but pre-seroconversion. Save yourself the expense and aggravation and eliminate the use of CMV seronegative units, and convert to 100% leukoreduction if you haven't done that. There are randomized trial data and many observational studies showing the clinical benefits of leukoreduction, including fewer episodes of nosocomial infection, the major cause of hospital morbidity and mortality. Sermon over :). Been there - done that - still can't make any headway with the neonatologists! Not even when we brought our Blood Distributor"s Medical Director with all the facts and figures. They still want CMV neg. On the plus side - everyone else is OK with leukoreduced cells as CMV safe now.. I think leukoreduction is the best production step that has ever been added to blood - especially the pre-storage leukoreduction we get now. Now - if we could just get some more donors.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now