Jump to content

Ruling out when HTLA present


Recommended Posts

We had a patient for whom an anti-Jkb and (presumed) anti-Kn was identified by the Red Cross in 2010. At that time, they could not rule out anti-K and it was recommended that we transfuse red cells negative for Jkb and K.

The patient has come in again and although some of her gel-crossmatched units were incompatible (neg for K and Jkb), K can be ruled out on her antibody screen.

Is it ok to now drop the K- restriction? Or should we honor that forever and ever, Amen?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The report from 2010 does not say she has anti-K, right? Only that they could not rule it out. So now she is no different than any other patient regarding anti-K. Unless it has been identified in the past, I can see no reason to worry about it now.

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that the patient is female. If she is of "child-bearing potential" (as I've said before, a hateful phrase, but in vogue) then I would give her K- blood anyway, on the grounds that she is obviously a "responder" and you don't want her to make anti-K, as this is a pretty nasty antibody in pregnancy. If she is beyond "child-bearing potential" (a phrase that makes you sound like you are talking about cattle!), then it is not so important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen many OBs with anti-K through the years but so far, no HDFN. All babies have been K neg so far. It helps that they transfuse these ladies less readily than in the early 80s. Is there cost/benefit data on this practice in the UK? Or maybe they don't have to worry about cost so much. I wonder why it is not a practice in the US. Maybe once molecular testing of donors gets more affordable and common, they will label units as K neg/pos and it will be easier to implement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that the patient is female. If she is of "child-bearing potential" (as I've said before, a hateful phrase, but in vogue) then I would give her K- blood anyway, on the grounds that she is obviously a "responder" and you don't want her to make anti-K, as this is a pretty nasty antibody in pregnancy. If she is beyond "child-bearing potential" (a phrase that makes you sound like you are talking about cattle!), then it is not so important.

Agreed with Malcolm , for female with child -bearing age we alway use K- blood

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen many OBs with anti-K through the years but so far, no HDFN. All babies have been K neg so far. It helps that they transfuse these ladies less readily than in the early 80s. Is there cost/benefit data on this practice in the UK? Or maybe they don't have to worry about cost so much. I wonder why it is not a practice in the US. Maybe once molecular testing of donors gets more affordable and common, they will label units as K neg/pos and it will be easier to implement.

The honest answer to your question about a cost/benefit analysis is that I don't know. What I do know is that they also do this in The Netherlands, so it is not just us, which makes me think that there must have been a cost/benefit analysis done at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Advertisement

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.