Appropriate provision of anti-D prophylaxis to RhD negative pregnant women: a scoping review

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Rose Perrin²  Brian Galliford²  Daniel Crompton²  Christorina Taruc²  M Jane Ritchey²  Trina M Fyfe¹ 

[1] Northern Medical Program, University of Northern British Columbia, 3333 University Way, Prince George V2N 4Z9, BC, Canada;Northern Health - Corporate Office Suite 600, 299 Victoria St., Prince George, V2L 5B8, BC, Canada

关键词: anti-D immunoglobulin;    guideline adherence;    Rho(D) Immune Globulin;    practice guidelines;    RhD isoimmunization;   

Others  :  1091043
DOI  :  10.1186/s12884-014-0411-1

 received in 2014-08-29, accepted in 2014-12-02,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The purpose of this scoping review was to review the literature on healthcare provider provision of anti-D prophylaxis to RhD negative pregnant women in appropriate clinical situations in various healthcare settings.

Methods

A scoping review framework was used to structure the process. The following databases were searched: CINAHL (EBSCO), EBM Reviews (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), Medline (OvidSP), and Web of Science (ISI). In addition, hand searching of article references was conducted. The search yielded 301 articles. Thirty-five articles remained for review after screening. Two team members reviewed each article using a detailed data collection sheet. A third reviewer was utilized if discrepancies occurred amongst reviewers.

Results

The review process yielded 18 included articles. The majority of the studies were conducted in the United Kingdom. Of the 18 studies, 15 were retrospective studies. The articles were largely conducted in one institution. The articles with a focus on routine antenatal provision of anti-D immunoglobulin found that it was given 80 to 90% of the time. Postpartum provision of anti-D immunoglobulin had significantly higher results of 95-100%. The review found that the delivery of anti-D immunoglobulin to RhD negative pregnant women during situations of potential sensitizing events was suboptimal.

Conclusions

The included articles examine the management of RhD negative pregnancies in various countries with existing national guidelines. The existing evidence indicates an opportunity for quality improvement in situations where potential sensitizing events are not at routine times in pregnancy, such as miscarriage or fetal demise early in pregnancy. Routine care for the prevention of RhD alloimmunization in pregnancy and postpartum appears to be fairly consistent. The paucity of recent literature in this area leads to a recommendation for further research.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Fyfe et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bowman J: Thirty-five years of Rh prophylaxis. Transfusion 2003, 43(12):1661-1666.
• [2]Urbaniak SJ, Greiss MA: RhD haemolytic disease of the fetus and the newborn. Blood Rev 2000, 14(1):44-61.
• [3]Crowther CA, Middleton P, McBain RD: Anti-D administration in pregnancy for preventing Rhesus alloimmunisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013., 2
• [4]Kent J, Farrell AM, Soothill P: Routine administration of Anti-D: the ethical case for offering pregnant women fetal RHD genotyping and a review of policy and practice. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014, 14:87. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Fung KFK, Eason E: Prevention of Rh alloimmunization. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003, 25(9):765-773.
• [6]Prevention of Rh Sensitization: Report of a WHO scienctific group In World Health Organization Technical Report Series No 468. World Health Organization, Geneva; 1971.
• [7]ACOG practice bulletin: Prevention of Rh D alloimmunization Int J Gynecology and Obstetrics 1999, 66(1):63-70.
• [8]Routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for women who are rhesus D negative: Review of NICE technology appraisal guidance 41 In NICE technology appraisal guidance 156. NICE, London; 2008:1-27.
• [9]Prices T, Rogers G, Holden J, Bibi M, Kenyon A, Willett S, McFarlane E: Review of TA156; Pregnancy - routine anti-D prophylaxis for rhesus negative women (review of TA41). National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London, United Kingdom; 2011.
• [10]Guidelines on the prophylactic use of Rh D immunoglobulin (anti-D) in obstetrics. National Blood Authority, Australia; 2003.
• [11]Martin J, Hamilton B, Sutton P, Ventura S, Menacker F, Munson M: Births: Final data for 2002. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2003, 52(10):1-114.
• [12]Koby L, Grunbaum A, Benjamin A, Koby R, Abenhaim HA: Anti-D in Rh(D)-negative pregnant women: are at-risk pregnancies and deliveries receiving appropriate prophylaxis? J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2012, 34(5):429-435.
• [13]Griffey RT, Chen BC, Krehbiel NW: Performance in appropriate Rh testing and treatment with Rh immunoglobulin in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 2012, 59(4):285-293.
• [14]Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK: Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 2010, 5:69. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Sampson M, McGowan J: Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59(10):1057-1063.
• [16]Qureshi H, Massey E, Kirwan D, Davies T, Robson S, White J, Jones J, Allard S: BCSH guideline for the use of anti-D immunoglobulin for the prevention of haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. Transfus Med 2014, 24(1):8-20.
• [17]Bolton-Maggs PH, Davies T, Poles D, Cohen H: Errors in anti-D immunoglobulin administration: retrospective analysis of 15 years of reports to the UK confidential haemovigilance scheme. BJOG 2013, 120(7):873-878.
• [18]Chaffe B, Ford J, Bills V: Routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis and patient compliance with the two-dose regimen. Transfus Med 2007, 17(5):399-403.
• [19]Hughes RG, Craig JI, Murphy WG, Greer IA: Causes and clinical consequences of Rhesus (D) haemolytic disease of the newborn: a study of a Scottish population, 1985–1990. Br J Obstetrics & Gynaecology 1994, 101(4):297-300.
• [20]MacKenzie IZ, Bowell P, Gregory H, Pratt G, Guest C, Entwistle CC: Routine antenatal Rhesus D immunoglobulin prophylaxis: the results of a prospective 10 year study. Br J Obstetrics & Gynaecology 1999, 106(5):492-497.
• [21]MacKenzie IZ, Findlay J, Thompson K, Roseman F: Compliance with routine antenatal rhesus D prophylaxis and the impact on sensitisations: observations over 14 years. BJOG 2006, 113(7):839-843.
• [22]Mayne S, Parker JH, Harden TA, Dodds SD, Beale JA: Rate of RhD sensitisation before and after implementation of a community based antenatal prophylaxis programme. BMJ 1997, 315(7122):1588.
• [23]McSweeny E, Kirkham J, Vinall P, Flanagan P: An audit of anti-D sensitisation in Yorkshire. Br J Obstetrics & Gynaecology 1998, 105:1091-1094.
• [24]Howard HL, Martlew VJ, McFadyen IR, Clarke CA: Preventing Rhesus D haemolytic disease of the newborn by giving anti-D immunoglobulin: are the guidelines being adequately followed? Br J Obstetrics & Gynaecology 1997, 104(1):37-41.
• [25]Rennie I, Smith A, Smith R, Rawlinson PS, Clark P: An audit of the investigation and use of anti-D immunoglobulin prophylaxis in Tayside. Health Bull 2001, 59(3):150-154.
• [26]Fox R, Savage R, Evans T, Moore L: Early pregnancy assessment; A role for the gynaecology nurse-practitioner. J Obstet Gynaecol 1999, 19(6):615-616.
• [27]Grant J, Hyslop M: Underutilization of Rh prophylaxis in the emergency department: a retrospective survey. Ann Emerg Med 1992, 21(2):181-183.
• [28]Huggon AM, Watson DP: Use of anti-D in an accident and emergency department. Arch Emerg Med 1993, 10(4):306-309.
• [29]McLaren B, Shelley JM: Reported management of early-pregnancy bleeding and miscarriage by general practitioners in Victoria. Medical J Australia 2002, 176(2):63-66.
• [30]Weinberg L: Use of anti-D immunoglobulin in the treatment of threatened miscarriage in the accident and emergency department. Emerg Med J 2001, 18(6):444-447.
• [31]Thorp JM: Utilization of anti-RhD in the emergency department after blunt trauma. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2008, 63(2):112-115.
• [32]Ghosh S, Murphy WG: Implementation of the rhesus prevention programme: a prospective study. Scott Med J 1994, 39(5):147-149.
• [33][http://rcp.nshealth.ca/rh] webcite Rh Program of Nova Scotia []
• [34]Legare F, Witteman HO: Shared decision making: examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice. Health Aff 2013, 32(2):276-284.
• [35]O’Neil M, Berkman N, Hartling L, Chang S, Anderson J, Motu’apuaka M, Guise J, McDonagh M: Observational evidence and strength of evidence domains: case examples. In Research White Paper. Scientific Resource Centre, Portland, OR; 2014:1-12.