Trek Tech

I prefer to give little c neg if the patient is little c antigen negative to keep them from forming the antibody. When there is a little c most of the panel cells are positive and it can be harder to identify new antibodies if your supply of reagent red cells is limited.

I prefer to give little c neg if the patient is little c antigen negative to keep them from forming the antibody. When there is a little c most of the panel cells are positive and it can be harder to identify new antibodies if your supply of reagent red cells is limited.

Hi Kelly,
 
I am delighted to say that there is nothing to worry about.
 
IAT stands for indirect antiglobulin test, which is one of the tests we use to detect antibodies.  It is a very sensitive test.
 
If your antibody (or antibodies) can no longer be detected by this technique, it means that they are very weak indeed, and will have no effect whatsoever on your unborn baby.

Hi again, my husband tested positive to the anti Cw and anti E antigens and I have been getting monthly blood tests. The results have been very positive and the titres are as low as can be detected and less than 1. They haven't risen throughout the pregnancy. I just received the latest results and it said "antibody non reactive by iat". Just wondering what this could mean for me. Can antibodies be low one day and higher the next? I am yet to find a dr who can fully explain these results or antibodies and this site has been invaluable. Any information would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you
Kelly

Update: thanks again because of everyone's help we enquired further and the wrong test was done so ier are in the. process of getting the right test. What an amazing site and dedicated members that provide a wonderful backup for people to double check their situation. Thanks again!

In that case Kelly, there is even less to worry about.
 
If your husband does not carry the RHE gene, he cannot pass it on to your baby, and so the baby will not express the E antigen.  If there is no E antigen present on the baby's red cells, your own anti-E cannot "attack" the baby's red cells.
 
Both anti-E and anti-Cw can be, what is termed "naturally occurring".  By this, we mean that they can be stimulated by something other than exposure to red cells by either transfusion or pregnancy.  Of course, in reality, they cannot be "naturally occurring", and must have been stimulated by something, but the stimulus is most probably something like a bacterium, many or which carry proteins and sugars on their surface that mimic humanblood group antigens closely enough to stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against these proteins and sugars, but these antibodies are almost always clinically insignificant, and nothing whatsoever to worry about.
 
Have a great pregnancy and enjoy your new baby when he/she arrives into the big wide world!

Hi Kelly,
 
Anna, John and goodchild are all quite correct, but, in a way, goodchild is the most correct of the three!
 
The problem is that we, in the world of blood transfusion, may well be experts in what we do, but are amongst the worst in the world for naming the antigens and antibodies with which we work.  It actually does make a huge difference as to whether we are talking about a "lower case e" or an "upper case E), and the only cw antigen is actually an "upper case C" and a "lower case w".  What I can say is that all of these antigens were named many years ago, so the mix up is not the fault of anyone who writes on this website!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
If you could clarify whether you have an anti-E or an anti-e, that would be great, but, that having been said, neither antibody is renowned for causing any big problems in pregnancy, and neither is anti-Cw.
 
Sorry to be so pedantic, but the correct name of the antibody really is important.

As a note, there's also a difference between "E" and "e" when it comes to antibodies.

We use the pneumatic tube system as well. But our protocol is that the floor can't return the unit via tube system. We send ours up by secure send so they have to punch in a code to retrieve the unit from the tube system and we never set it up so they could tube it down securely. I guess we would probably resend it by tube system. I hadn't thought about it.
Mari

I agree. The import piece of this is that temperature was maintained.  You validation show have shown that and since you stated that temperature had been maintained, it should have been fine to resend.  The benefit to your method was that perhaps the next time, the nurse will make sure she is ready to hang the blood before requesting it be sent so she doesn't have to trek over to pick it up.  So that might have been a good plan anyway!

Hi Trektech2; you have been missed.
 
Yes, I am still about.

Sorry but I have to agree with your co-workers on this one.    If your tube system has been validated for one transport then I fail to see where the concern for 2 or 3 would arise. This of course is based solely on the transport part of the equation. 
 
Just my humble opinion based on absolutely no relevant data! So the real question now is: Who is the crazy one!