Anti-Ge2: further evidence for lack of clinical significance

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Immunohematology

American National Red Cross

Subject: Medical Laboratory Technology

GET ALERTS SUBSCRIBE

ISSN: 0894-203X
eISSN: 1930-3955

DESCRIPTION

6
Reader(s)
6
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Archive
Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Volume 30 (2014)
Volume 29 (2013)
Volume 28 (2012)
Volume 27 (2011)
Volume 26 (2010)
Volume 25 (2009)
Volume 24 (2008)
Volume 23 (2007)
Volume 22 (2006)
Volume 21 (2005)
Volume 20 (2004)
Volume 19 (2003)
Volume 18 (2002)
Volume 17 (2001)
Volume 16 (2000)
Volume 15 (1999)
Volume 14 (1998)
Volume 13 (1997)
Volume 12 (1996)
Volume 11 (1995)
Volume 10 (1994)
Volume 9 (1993)
Volume 8 (1992)
Volume 7 (1991)
Volume 6 (1990)
Volume 5 (1989)
Volume 4 (1988)
Volume 3 (1987)
Related articles

VOLUME 30 , ISSUE 4 (December 2014) > List of articles

Anti-Ge2: further evidence for lack of clinical significance

Deepthi Karunasiri * / Frederick Lowder / Nora Ostrzega / Dennis Goldfinger

Citation Information : Immunohematology. Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 156-157, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/immunohematology-2019-112

License : (Transfer of Copyright)

Published Online: 01-December-2019

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

Anti-Ge2 may be immune or naturally occurring, and it reacts with an antigen on glycophorin D. Ge2 is encoded by a gene, GYPC, which is located on the long arm of chromosome 2. Anti-Ge2 is usually an immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody. In the available literature, we have not been able to find any reported cases of proven acute hemolytic transfusion reactions caused by anti-Ge2. We present the case of a 67-year-old man with metastatic pancreatic carcinoma who had symptomatic anemia and a hemoglobin concentration of 6.3 g/dL. During pretransfusion testing, anti-Ge2 was identified in his serum. Only a single unit of compatible, Ge:–2 frozen red blood cells (RBCs) could be provided by the blood supplier. A second unit of crossmatched, least-incompatible, leukocyte-reduced RBCs, presumably Ge:2, was also transfused. The transfusion was completed without incident, and the patient’s hemoglobin concentration rose appropriately. Posttransfusion values for haptoglobin, lactate dehydrogenase, and urine hemoglobin were within normal limits. A monocyte monolayer assay performed on this anti-Ge2 supports the data that antibodies of this specificity do not cause hemolysis. The clinical and laboratory data obtained in our patient clearly indicated that no hemolysis of transfused RBCs occurred during and for 24 hours after transfusion. We believe that this report adds to a limited experience with antiGe2 and provides further evidence for concluding that, in all likelihood, this is not a clinically important RBC antibody. The risk of transfusing apparently “incompatible” (Ge:2) RBCs seems remote and should allow for timely administration of RBCs when treating patients with serious anemia.

You don't have 'Full Text' access of this article.

Purchase Article Subscribe Journal Share