A Rhesus Negative Mums!

[Expectantmum]

Wondered if could give me some advice/set my mind at rest. I am 30, 22 weeks pg and have just found out that my blood group in A Rhesus Negative, which means I have to have the Anti D (I think thats what the midwife called it) jabs over the next few months. Can I hear from any other women who experienced the same and just set my mind at rest and maybe put into some terminology I might understand .

Thank you!

Hi is your cousin rh negative?
I am and this is my second pregnancy i am 31 weeks and have just found out that i have developed antibodies,i also have to wait till later this week for the results,it can be quite serious,so i am also very worried,basically if she is rh neg, the antibodies can pass to the baby and can cause anaemia,this can be from mild to severe,another name for this is haematolic.

Hi all.
I am AB rh-, my husband is A+ (as far as I'm aware, I do not have antibodies), and have had anti-d after the birth of two of my children (the middle one is rhesus negative), and three times in 3 months during my fourth but ultimately doomed pregnancy. The thinking around here seems to be that you should have anti-D after any bleed in pregnancy, and the later the bleed, the more important it is that you have anti-d, if you want to have more children. It seems that in some areas, you have to make a bit of a fuss about getting it, but I think it's worth making a fuss about.

Antibodies are checked when they do your bloods at various points in a first PG, and systematically with a 2nd PG (I'm B rhes - , and for the 2nd PG they're giving me a jab around week 30). Don't worry about requesting a jab after the birth - they will check the baby's blood and work it out themselves. The important thing about rhes - is that it is treatable, unlike other, rarer antibodies that aren't. But the rule is simple: anti-D at every bleed or risk of a bleed in PG (e.g. a fall or an accident). Anti-D after a miscarriage. Anti-D after the birth. I hadn't heard about the mercury issue, but frankly I'd rather run the risk of having a jab than revive 'blue baby syndrome'. But that's just me.

cross-post with melissness - what I mean by 'treatable' is that anti-D acts while you're PG to prevent problems whereas rarer antibodies require monitoring during PG - BUT even these aren't always going to be a problem, so it's important that your cousin has been told of it at this stage.

there's nothing to worry about, it doesn't hurt at all. you have it in the top of the arm you don't write with (cos sometimes they say it can go a bit heavy afterwards) But do you know what blood group your dp is? if he is negative to the baby will be negative so you won't need it.

same happened to me. i should have been sent a letter to tell me to go for the anti d. you are meant to have it twice at a 2 different points in pregnancy. i missed the first one and it was only cos i was flicking through my book and there was a little sticker saying i needed anti - d that i noticed.

There is a bit of confusion coming through here that needs cleared up.

Anti-D is given to PREVENT antibodies forming. What it does is prevent your body from recognising baby blood cells that might have passed into your bloodstream due to a bleed. This is only a problem if the baby is rhesus positive. It should be given in the first pregnancy too.

The reason anti-D has been introduced routinely during pregnancy is because there are a very few women who become 'silently sensitised'. That means that they have had a bleed but no outward signs.

Some women have become sensitised because they were never given anti-D when they should have been ie after a 12 week miscarriage, after delivery if the baby was rhesus positive, after amniocentesis, after a bleeding epsiode.

Anti-D should also be given in the ARM to be more effective. It is thought that some women have become sensitised because the injection was given in the buttock or thigh and therefore did not get absorbed properly. It may be more painful but that is the place it should be given.

If you are rhesus negative and your partner is too, there is no need to have anti-D. Obviously your partner should be the father of the baby. I get annoyed that it is assumed lots of women have babies fathered by men other than their partners.

Anti-D is a blood product and it really isn't known what the long term affect could be giving it to pregnant women. It is exposing a baby to a risk in this pregnancy which is to prevent problems in the next pregnancy. It might be that you won't have another pregnancy therefore the risk is unnecessary.

I personally have antibodies that were picked up during my second pregnancy. All rhesus negative women have their antibodies checked at booking, 28 weeks and 34 weeks. That baby wasa fine. Me third baby was delievered prematurely because of antibodies and he needed a blood transfusion when he was 6 weeks old. My fourth (and last) baby needed to have her blood changed (exchange transfusion) 3 times after birth and was subsequently fine. She was born at 37 weeks.

After my second pregnancy I did not get anti-D again as there was no point - I had already produced antibodies.

I personally am not sure that we should be exposing unborn babies to blood products to prevent rhesus disease. We are exposing all rhesus negative mums to this to prevent a rare occurence.

You really need to look into it to make up your own mind. A great book is Sara Wickam - Anti-D Panacea or Paradox (title is something like that)

sara wickam's book here

Did i frighten you all off?

Hope the original poster doesn't mind, I'm dropping in on the thread.

So Mears...Anti-D 'Mops up' the possibly positive blood (from baby) that MIGHT produce antibodies?

I am A rhd neg. Dd is positive. I had Anti-D postpartum (in buttock) and nadd at booking. I had Anti-D at 28 weeks and am currently 32 weeks.

Are you saying that if you already have the antibodies there isn't anything they can do?

That is right. The anti-D prevents your body recognising the positive fetal cells and then producing antibodies.

Once you produce antibodies, you r pregnancy is monitored closely. If there is a severe antibody reponse, it can lead to the baby having exchange blood transfusions in the womb. The antibodies attack the babies blood cells if they are rhesus positive. A negative baby would be fine. Once you develop the antibodies, you are no longer given anti-D injections as there s no point.

And did I read you are meant to have another anti-D later in the pregnancy. You question the wisdom of giving it at all

You are offered anti-D at 28 weeks and 34 weeks. The anti-D lasts about 6 weeks in the system. A blood sample is taken before the anti-D is given again and the laboratory checks to see if any antibodies have formed (there are lots of others that need checked too)

I question whether every rhesus negative woman should be exposing their babies to a blood product due to the very small numebr of women who do develop antibodies (which does include me)

The anti-D does not help this pregnnacy in any way - it is for future pregnnacies and I don't think women realise that.

you will have jab in your leg which will make you feel like you been punched then you will get a lovely bruise you have it in case the babies blood is different to your as if it is babies blood can attack yours making you ill i had one at 32weeks an one 8hrs after giving birth as dd is A positive good luck its easy!

Didn't hurt really in my arm or buttock.

So only really an issue if I intend to have baby number 3. Nobody mentioned 34 week anti-D though.

I agree with you Mears about them assuming one's DH might not be the father. DH thought he was also rh negative so he asked for a blood test to check. Well it was like the blooming Spanish Inquisition getting "permission" - and a good thing too because he was actually Rg positive. Apparently, they're not "allowed" to test the father in case he's not the father

As you'll have gathered I'm rh negative (O neg to be precise). I was offered Anti-D during pregnancy. I thought long and hard and chose not to have it. A so-called "silent" sensitising event is so unlikely that I felt the risks of introducing blood products into my system were greater, especially since I didn't even know if I needed it.

DS's cord blood was tested after he was born and he was actually Rhesus positive so I had the Anti-D then (and after being told by my MW that it'd hurt loads I hardly felt it, but I was doped up on painkillers at the time). I was tested for antibodies and there were none, so I made the right call I think.

HTH!

Mears or anyone, can I ask a question? Have you come across this before and if so, how do I proceed?

I'm A-, and pregnant with my 3rd dc, all with the same father. The mw explained current protocol is anti-d at 28wk, 34wk and post natally.

Presently I'm of the mind to not have blood products unless I actually need them. So I asked if she could look up my dh's blood gp to see if he is -ive as well (with his permission). After a bit of beating about the bush she admitted that she couldn't do that, as if he's -ive it doesn't necessarily mean 'the father' is -ive. Now, I know what she's implying, and that she is probably just following protocol, but surely if he gives his permission and I take responsibility for the knowledge that he is the father then we can do this?

She also implied there would be a cost implication if his bld gp isn't documented in his notes, but surely one bld test is cheaper than 3 unnecessary anti-d injections. Clutching at straws, I asked if ds1&2 notes could be looked up. I figured if either were +ive then at least I'd know that I should have the anti-d (I know if they were both -ive I could still need it). But she wouldn't do that either.

Anyway, I suppose I'm asking if you know of any literature or research I can use in my quest to find out whether I really need anti-d or not, or whether I'm wasting my time trying. The health professionals talk about 'informed choices', but I'm feeling a little coerced and because they're refusing to notify us of dh's bld gp, not fully informed. Hope this all makes sense!

Kinki - I've no advice to offer other than that in my post, but I do sympathise. I guess they're just covering themselves, but I wonder if they realise how insulting and upsetting it is. (It's like the gynaecologist who INSISTED he had to redo my chlamydia test before they'd proceed with infertility tests after they lost my notes and the other one expired. It was in case I was lying about not sleeping around, apparently).

Crossed with twinkle there, I had a break half way through writing my post!

that's awful twinkle. Can I ask, what did you and dh have to do to get them to test him. Was it just persistance or did you have to put it in writing?

Yes it was awful Kinki - so much so that I didn't go back to the drs for two years.

It was just persistence really. The MW was fine about it. The receptionist and the nurse gave him twenty questions but in the end they just did it, to shut us up I think. I couldn't believe they made such a fuss - he's got a right to know fgs - it's his blood!

Thanks for that, I think I'll go back and keep asking. Also I'll ask dh to go to his own doctors appointment and put pressure on that way. It's not right people are being treated the way you were, and the way it's going for me.

The easiest way to find out your own blood group is to donate blood. That's how I knew my blood group before I was pregnant.