Does anti-D completely eradicate the risk of rejecting the next baby?

[Mumblesmummy]

I'm rhesus negative, and so when I bled last week, i had an anti D. I'm due to have one at 24 weeks and one at 34 or something like that, then I think there's one after the birth. I was told if I don't have them there's a chance that my body will reject any babies I try to have after this one. So does anti-D provide an absolute reassurance against that happening? Or is there a possibility it could still happen?

Sorry if this has been asked before.

Anti-d does not provide total reassurance against you developing antibodies. You now get the prophylactic doses of anti-d as research shows that this should provide the majority of women with cover for any silent bleeds that they may have in pregnancy - you normally get the anti d at 28 weeks and then I think 34 weeks. This is because research shows you're more likely to have a bleed later on in your pregnancy and these shots should cover you.

If you had a bleed or fall that you noticed you should also get anti-d within 72 hours of the incident.

But I suppose if you had an unnoticed bleed at 20 weeks then you would have produced antibodies by the 28 weeks shot.

They will check you for antibodies post-delivery. If you do have antibodies (unlikely) it does not mnean that future babies will be rejected, it can mean that there is a higher chance of the baby developing problems in utero such as becoming anaemic but they would keep a close eye on you and if that developed there are things that can be done and are normally successful.

It does sound an odd thing when they say its to help prevent problems with future pregnancies when here i am with baby 3 on the way and now looking at more anti D injections than i ever had before lol, and wow dont they sting! arghhh

I had 4 lots of anti-d through my pregnancy because of my o-neg blood type and a bleed at 24 weeks. After the birth it ended up my son was also rhesus negative!

I would really like to know my partners blood group, just incase he is rh neg but then even if he is pos it doesnt rule out a rh neg baby as i am told it is a recessive gene.

But if you're partner is rhs neg then baby must be too so no need for anti-d.

Gawd they really bloody sting. Right in the arse, ouch!

Anti-d should only be given in the arm. They used to give it in the bum - but if you're still getting it in the bum then tell your m/w to give it in your deltoid as per NICE guidelines.

yes in 1990 i was given it in my buttock but its been explained to me that its now given in arm - still i bet the sting is no less

I had it in the arse in 2006!

Perhaps that would be better rephrased....

.

I'm sure the guidelines have been out since at least 2005. I started m/w training early 2005 and have only ever given it in the arm.

Odd - I had it in the arm in 2003 during pregnancy then in the bum after the birth (after an episiotomy without anaesthetic - talk about adding insult to bloomin' massive injury) - I suppose they just thought that whilst they were down there they might as well... Last pg (2005/6) was all in the arm again. Go figure! One baby was Rh positive but the next was Rh neg, annoying as I REALLY wanted to leave the hospital and get home to ds and dp but had to wait ages for the results...

I had my anti D in the arse at 18 weeks (couple of weeks ago), and I didn't feel it because i guess she got a fleshy part ( it's all fleshy), So it's definately arm now is it? I'll tell them at 24 weeks to keep their mits off my bum!!

I had one in the bum at 17 weeks (following a bleed). I the the route 28 week one in the arm. Never thought about the different ways of doing it till now!