Discussion
After the transfusion of RhD-positive RBC-containing products such as low titer group O whole blood (LTOWB) and RBC units to an injured RhD-negative WCP, there are several events that all must occur for her to have a future pregnancy affected by HDFN (figure 1). This study identified and quantitated the frequency of a novel event in the sequence from RhD-positive transfusion during trauma resuscitation to an HDFN outcome, that is, the development of a high titer anti-D among women who were D-alloimmunized. In this single center study, 62% of the pregnant women who were D-alloimmunized developed an antibody with a titer ≥16, which is the titer threshold at this institution for initiating closer monitoring of the pregnancy for HDFN. The corollary of this finding is that approximately 38% of women who are D-alloimmunized do not produce an antibody of a sufficiently high titer to routinely warrant closer monitoring for HDFN thereby lowering the probability that HDFN will occur among these women.
The sole intention of this pragmatic study was to determine the proportion of alloimmunized women who produced a high titer antibody that would prompt closer scrutiny of the pregnancy. To that end, this study did not evaluate whether HDFN occurred in the D-alloimmunized pregnancies or if the severity of HDFN correlated with the anti-D titer because it is known that anti-D can cause HDFN and that higher titer antibodies tend to cause worse disease.11–13 Furthermore, the mechanistic explanation of why some women develop high titer antibodies remains elusive and warrants further investigation in larger multicenter studies.
With the new data from this study on the frequency of developing a high titer anti-D, as well as the inclusion of several relevant events that were not considered when the original HDFN risk calculations were published,3 it is possible to more accurately estimate how frequently perinatal death or perinatal death and other severe outcomes of HDFN will occur after the transfusion of RhD-positive blood products to women during their resuscitation (figure 1). First, the woman must be of childbearing age and, according to 2021 US population census data,14 approximately 54% of the women who were 15 years of age or older in 2021 were between 15 and 49 years old. However, a broader view of the childbearing years would also account for the girls who were younger than 15 years old because, if they survive their trauma, they could become pregnant in the future. In 2021, 62% of all women and girls in the USA were between the ages of 0 and 49 years old and this higher percentage will be used in the overall HDFN risk calculation.14 In the USA, 15% of women will be RhD-negative and thus at risk of HDFN.15 The Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) study found that approximately 76% of patients with trauma survived for at least 30-days.16 If she survives the trauma then she must become pregnant, which happens at least once in 86% of American women aged 40–44 years old.17 Next, the woman must become D-alloimmunized. The range of D-alloimmunization rates that have been reported among hospitalized RhD-negative recipients of RhD-positive blood products such as RBCs and/or LTOWB during their resuscitation is between 7.8% to 42.7% and for this calculation, the highest reported rate will be used.1 2 As the current study found, 62% of pregnant, D-alloimmunized women produce an anti-D with a titer ≥16 thereby putting that pregnancy at higher risk of HDFN. Approximately 60% of fetuses will be RhD-positive and thus susceptible to HDFN.15 Finally, 4% of pregnancies affected by HDFN will result in perinatal death,18 whereas 25% of affected pregnancies will result in perinatal death or another serious adverse effect such as requiring an intrauterine transfusion or neonatal exchange transfusion.19 Multiplying all these frequencies together gives a calculated risk of perinatal death from HDFN of 0.04% and of perinatal death or other serious adverse effects of 0.24%. These risks of perinatal adverse outcomes must be weighed against the benefits of prehospital and early in-hospital transfusions, which in many cases might be RhD-postive due to the scarcity of RhD-negative units.
This study has several limitations. It was not possible to determine the source of the anti-D alloimmunization event for these women, although a recent study demonstrated that the stimulating event of antibodies that cause HDFN is predominantly from previous pregnancies.20 Furthermore, it is not known if antibodies stimulated by transfusion are more or less likely to become high titer than those stimulated by a previous pregnancy. In any case, it is unlikely that a woman’s pregnancy with a high titer anti-D would be managed differently based on the cause of the alloimmunization. It is also unknown if the women were re-exposed to RhD-positive RBCs via fetal–maternal hemorrhage during their second pregnancy. In addition, it is possible that some women had anti-D titers performed outside of this hospital’s network, which would not have been available for analysis. It is also important to consider that although titer testing is limited by high intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory scoring variation,21 the titer data used in this study are those that were used by the patients’ obstetricians for clinical decision-making and so they reflect this hospital’s laboratory and clinical practice. Both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)22 and the AABB (Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies, formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks)15 recommend a critical anti-D titer threshold of between 8 and 32 when determining which pregnancies require more intensive monitoring for HDFN. A lower titer threshold would be more sensitive for detecting affected pregnancies but would result in more women with unaffected pregnancies undergoing what would ultimately be unnecessary HDFN screening.23 24 At this hospital, women with anti-D that titers to <16 are followed by repeat titer testing every month, however, additional testing such as non-stress tests, growth ultrasounds, or fetal biophysical profiles are not performed because the anti-D titer has not crossed the critical threshold. Thus, the focus of this study was on women with a titer ≥16 because at this center, those women are especially likely to be routinely offered extra monitoring for HDFN during their pregnancy. Although unlikely, it is possible that RhIg could produce an anti-D titer >4, which would have led to the patient’s erroneous inclusion in this study. However, the published literature, and the experience at this hospital’s RBC immunohematology reference laboratory, all suggest that anti-D titers ≥8 are not caused by RhIg administration. Lastly, this study was performed at one center, thereby potentially limiting its generalizability to other centers and a multicenter trial is required to definitively determine the rate at which D-alloimmunized women develop a high titer antibody.
These data suggest that 62% of the D-alloimmunized WCPs might produce an anti-D that rises to a titer that would typically lead to more extensive HDFN monitoring at this institution. These data allow for a more comprehensive calculation of the perinatal HDFN risk after the transfusion of RhD-positive RBCs and LTOWB during a woman’s resuscitation. Including the 62% risk of developing a high titer (≥16) anti-D, the risk of perinatal death was calculated to be 0.04% and the risk of perinatal death or experiencing a severe adverse HDFN event was calculated to be 0.24%.