The reasoning behind the 72 hour after birth time frame is that this is the time it takes for the bodies immune response to kick in if confronted by rh +ve antibodies due to a sensitising event (such as birth). It is not how long the antibodies last for. Therefore the reasoning behind giving it prophylactically is that if unrecognised sensitising events occur during pregnancy the circulating anti D knock off the rh +ve antibodies and prevent sensitisation occurring.
I have been come across another issue. Women who have had the prophylactic anti D will test as having residual anti D in their system at birth. I had one case recently where pathology decided that there was enough remaining that anti D was not required after birth even though she had an rh +ve baby. I am yet to receive advice on this from a source I feel confident about. Anyone have any ideas. I have asked for confirmation on this from CSL but to date have not had a reply from the MUM.
Andrea Quanchi On Monday, October 25, 2004, at 07:40 , Nicole Carver wrote:
Hi Kristin,
I have concerns about the reasoning behind the giving of anti D in
pregnancy. It is apparently done because some women develop anti D
antibodies without any obvious clinical events that can be treated with anti
D when they occur. (Previously anti D was only given if there was an event
whereby foetal cells could enter the maternal circulation). I can't
understand how giving anti D twice in pregnancy can prevent antibody
formation for the whole pregnancy, when after birth, it must be given within
72 hours to be effective. If the same period of action applies in pregnancy,
wouldn't it have to be given every three days throughout the pregnancy?
Perhaps someone can set me straight on this? The other thing I am concerned
about is the wide scale use of a blood product on pregnant women. I feel
certain that many women are not giving true informed consent to this.
Kind regards,
Nicole Carver.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kristin Beckedahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 6:52 PM
Dear List,
I have recently heard of the Anti-D that can be given during pregnancy
(28weeks?) for the prevention of HDN... does anyone know how effective it
is, and if it is safe...? Thanks, Kristin
-- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
-- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
-- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
