Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Dec 10:14:411.
doi: 10.1186/s12884-014-0411-1.

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

Affiliations

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

Trina M Fyfe et al. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bowman J. Thirty-five years of Rh prophylaxis. Transfusion. 2003;43(12):1661–1666. doi: 10.1111/j.0041-1132.2003.00632.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Urbaniak SJ, Greiss MA. RhD haemolytic disease of the fetus and the newborn. Blood Rev. 2000;14(1):44–61. doi: 10.1054/blre.1999.0123. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Crowther CA, Middleton P, McBain RD. Anti-D administration in pregnancy for preventing Rhesus alloimmunisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2 - PubMed
    1. 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. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-87. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fung KFK, Eason E. Prevention of Rh alloimmunization. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2003;25(9):765–773. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances