Case report: massive postpartum transfusion of Jr(a+) red cells in the presence of anti-Jra

Jr(a) is a high-prevalence antigen. The rare Jr(a-) individuals can form anti-Jr(a) after exposure to the Jr(a) antigen through transfusion or pregnancy. The clinical significance of anti-Jr(a) is not well established. This study reports a case of a 31-year-old woman with a previously identified anti-Jr(a) who required massive transfusion of RBCs after developing life-threatening postpartum disseminated intravascular coagulopathy. Despite the emergent transfusion of 15 units of Jr(a) untested RBCs, she did not develop laboratory or clinical evidence of acute hemolysis. The patient's anti-Jr(a) had a pretransfusion titer of 4 and a monocyte monolayer assay (MMA) reactivity of 68.5% (reactivity > 5% is considered capable of shortening the survival of incompatible RBCs). The titer increased fourfold to 64 and the MMA reactivity was 72.5% on Day 10 posttransfusion. Review of laboratory data showed evidence of a mild delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction by Day 10 posttransfusion. Despite rare reports of hemolytic transfusion reactions due to anti-Jr(a) in the literature, most cases, including this one, report that this antibody is clinically insignificant or causes only mild delayed hemolysis. Clinicians should be advised to balance the risks of withholding transfusion with the small chance of significant hemolysis after transfusion of Jr(a+) RBCs in the presence of anti-Jr(a).

Prevention of immunization to D+ red blood cells with red blood cell exchange and intravenous Rh immune globulin

BACKGROUND

Although young women who are D- occasionally receive unintentional transfusions with D+ red blood cells (RBCs), there are little data to assist with management of such an event. Two cases of D- girls transfused with D+ RBCs are reported. In an effort to prevent formation of anti-D, RBC exchange followed by administration of intravenous (IV) Rh immune globulin (RhIg) was used.

CASE REPORTS

Patient 1, a 56-kg, 16-year-old D- girl, was involved in a motor vehicle crash. She received 4 units of Group O uncrossmatched D+ RBCs. Thirty-six hours after admission, she underwent RBC exchange with 10 units of D- RBCs, followed by a total of 2718 microg of IV RhIg over 32 hours. Six months later, her antibody screen was negative. Patient 2, a 39-kg, 10-year-old D- girl with aplastic anemia, received 1 unit of D+ RBCs. She underwent RBC exchange on the same day with 5 units of D- RBCs, followed by a total of 900 microg of IV RhIg over 8 hours. Six months later her antibody screen was negative.

CONCLUSION

RBC exchange followed by a calculated dose of IV RhIg was successful in preventing allo-immunization to D. Several small studies suggest that both trauma and hematology patients may be less capable of becoming immunized with the transfusion of D+ blood components. Until these findings are more clearly defined, there will be times when prevention of immunization of any D- girl is desired. RBC exchange followed by RhIg appears to be one way to achieve this goal.