0
selected
-
1.
Comparison of quantitative and calculated postpartum blood loss after vaginal delivery
Madar, H., Sentilhes, L., Goffinet, F., Bonnet, M. P., Rozenberg, P., Deneux-Tharaux, C.
American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM. 2023;:101065
-
-
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Because there is no consensual method of assessing postpartum blood loss, the comparability and relevance of the postpartum hemorrhage-related literature is questionable. Quantitative blood loss assessment using a volumetric technique with a graduated collector bag has been proposed to overcome limitations of intervention-based outcomes but remains partly subjective and potentially biased by amniotic fluid or missed out-of-bag losses. Calculated blood loss based on laboratory parameters has been published and used as an objective method expected to reflect total blood loss, but few studies have compared quantitative with calculated blood loss. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to compare the distribution of postpartum blood loss after vaginal delivery assessed by two methods - quantitative and calculated blood loss - and the incidence of abnormal blood loss with each method. STUDY DESIGN The data came from the merged database of 3 multicenter, randomized controlled trials, all testing different interventions to prevent postpartum blood loss in individuals with a singleton live fetus ≥ 35 weeks, born vaginally. All 3 trials measured blood loss volume by using a graduated collector bag. Hematocrit was measured in the eighth or ninth month of gestation and on day 2 postpartum. The two primary outcomes were: quantitative blood loss defined by the total volume of blood loss measured in a graduated collector bag, and calculated blood loss mathematically defined from the peripartum hematocrit change (estimated blood volume × [(antepartum hematocrit - postpartum hematocrit)/antepartum hematocrit], where estimated blood volume (mL) = booking weight (kg) × 85). We modelled the association between positive quantitative blood loss and positive calculated blood loss with polynomial regression and calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient. RESULTS Among the 8341 individuals included in this analysis, the median quantitative blood loss (100 mL, interquartile range 50-275) was significantly lower than the median calculated blood loss (260 mL, interquartile range 0-630) (P<.05). The incidence of abnormal blood loss was lower with quantitative blood loss than calculated blood loss for blood loss ≥ 500 mL, ≥ 1000 mL and ≥ 2000 mL, respectively, it was 9.6% (799/8341) vs 32.3% (2691/8341), 2.1% (176/8341) vs 11.5% (959/8341), and 0.1% (10/8341) vs 1.4% (117/8341); (P<.05). Quantitative blood loss and calculated blood loss were significantly but moderately correlated (Spearman coefficient=0.44; P<.05). The association between them was not linear, and their difference tended to increase with blood loss. Negative calculated blood loss values occurred in 23% (1958/8341) of individuals; among them, more than 99% (1939/1958) had quantitative blood loss ≤ 500 mL. CONCLUSION Quantitative and calculated blood loss were significantly but moderately correlated after vaginal delivery. However, clinicians should be aware that quantitative blood loss is lower than calculated blood loss, with a difference that tended to rise as blood loss increased.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients who gave birth vaginally, participating in the TRACOR, CYTOCINON, and TRAAP randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in several French maternity units (n= 8,341).
Intervention
This study aimed to compare the distribution of postpartum blood assessed by two methods - quantitative and calculated blood loss - and the incidence of abnormal blood loss with each method.
Comparison
Outcome
The data came from 3 RCTs testing different interventions to prevent postpartum blood loss. All 3 trials measured blood loss volume by using a graduated collector bag. The authors modelled the association between positive quantitative blood loss and positive calculated blood loss with polynomial regression and calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient. The median quantitative blood loss (100 mL, IQR= 50, 275) was significantly lower than the median calculated blood loss (260 mL, IQR= 0, 630). The incidence of abnormal blood loss was lower with quantitative blood loss than calculated blood loss. Quantitative blood loss and calculated blood loss were significantly but moderately correlated (Spearman coefficient= 0.44). The association between them was not linear, and their difference tended to increase with blood loss. Negative calculated blood loss values occurred in 23% (1,958/8,341) of individuals; among them, more than 99% (1,939/1,958) had quantitative blood loss ≤ 500 mL.
-
2.
Quantification of blood loss for the diagnosis of postpartum hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Ruiz, M. T., Azevedo, N. F., Resende, C. V., Rodrigues, W. F., Meneguci, J., Contim, D., Wernet, M., Oliveira, C. J. F.
Revista brasileira de enfermagem. 2023;76(6):e20230070
Abstract
OBJECTIVE to compare the effectiveness of different diagnostic methods to estimate postpartum blood volume loss. METHODS a systematic review of effectiveness according to PRISMA and JBI Protocol. Searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, LILACS, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science and CINAHL, with descriptor "Postpartum Hemorrhage" associated with keyword "Quantification of Blood Loss". Tabulated extracted data, presented in metasynthesis and meta-analysis was applied to quantitative data. To assess risk of bias, JBI Appraisal Tools were applied. RESULTS fourteen studies were included, published between 2006 and 2021. Quantification of loss by any method was superior to visual estimation and is highly recommended, however the studies' high heterogeneity did not allow estimating this association. CONCLUSION the studies' high heterogeneity, with a probable margin of error given the uncontrolled factors, indicates the need for further studies, however quantification proved to be effective in relation to visual estimate. PROSPERO registration CRD 42021234486.
-
3.
The Recognition of Excessive blood loss At ChildbirTh (REACT) Study: A two-phase exploratory, sequential mixed methods inquiry using focus groups, interviews, and a pilot, randomised crossover study
Hancock A, Weeks AD, Furber C, Campbell M, Lavender T
BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. 2021
-
-
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To explore how childbirth-related blood loss is evaluated and excessive bleeding recognised; and develop and test a theory of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) diagnosis. DESIGN Two-phase, exploratory, sequential mixed methods design using focus groups, interviews and a pilot, randomised crossover study. SETTING Two hospitals in North West England. SAMPLE Women (following vaginal birth with and without PPH), birth partners, midwives and obstetricians. METHODS Phase 1 (qualitative): 8 focus groups and 20 one-to-one, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 women, 5 birth partners, 11 obstetricians, 1 obstetric anaesthetist and 19 midwives (n=51). Phase 2 (quantitative): 11 obstetricians and 10 midwives (n=21) completed two simulations of fast and slow blood loss using a high-fidelity childbirth simulator. RESULTS Responses to blood loss were described as automatic, intuitive reactions to the speed, nature and visibility of blood flow. Health professionals reported that quantifying volume was most useful after a PPH diagnosis, to validate intuitive decisions and guide on-going management. During simulations, PPH treatment was initiated at volumes at or below 200ml (fast mean blood loss 79.6ml, SD 41.1; slow mean blood loss 62.6ml, SD 27.7). All participants treated fast, visible blood loss, but only half treated slow blood loss, despite there being no difference in volumes (difference 18.2ml, 95% CI -5.6 to 42.2ml, p=0.124). CONCLUSIONS Experience and intuition, rather than blood loss volume, inform recognition of excessive blood loss after birth. Women and birth partners want more information and open communication about blood loss. Further research exploring clinical decision-making and how to support it is required.
PICO Summary
Population
Women following vaginal birth, birth partners, midwives and obstetricians in two centres in the UK (n= 51).
Intervention
Simulation of ‘slow blood loss followed by fast blood loss’ (n= 10).
Comparison
Simulation of ‘fast blood loss followed by slow blood loss’ (n= 11).
Outcome
This mixed methods study had a qualitative phase involving focus groups and interviews, and a quantitative phase consisting in a randomised crossover study. Responses to blood loss were described as automatic, intuitive reactions to the speed, nature and visibility of blood flow. Health professionals reported that quantifying volume was most useful after a postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) diagnosis, to validate intuitive decisions and guide on-going management. During simulations, PPH treatment was initiated at volumes at or below 200ml (fast mean blood loss 79.6ml, SD 41.1; slow mean blood loss 62.6ml, SD 27.7). All participants treated fast, visible blood loss, but only half treated slow blood loss, despite there being no difference in volumes (difference 18.2ml).
-
4.
The more you lose the more you miss: accuracy of postpartum blood loss visual estimation. A systematic review of the literature
Natrella, M., Di Naro, E., Loverro, M., Benshalom-Tirosh, N., Trojano, G., Tirosh, D., Besser, L., Loverro, M. T., Mastrolia, S. A.
The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians. 2018;31(1):106-115
Abstract
Midwives and nurses have a key role in monitoring postpartum period. They represent the first line professional figure in quantifying blood loss, initiating early diagnosis of obstetric hemorrhage, and mobilizing a team response, if needed. These actions are crucial in determining maternal outcome in postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). In our review we aimed to: (1) Provide a picture of PPH including its pathophysiology, epidemiology, and associated complications; (2) Discuss diagnosis of this dangerous postpartum event; and, (3) Especially evaluate the efficiency of the employment of visual blood loss estimation as a rapid way to suspect PPH and activate the patient assessment.
-
5.
Calibrated delivery drape versus indirect gravimetric technique for the measurement of blood loss after delivery: a randomized trial
Ambardekar, S., Shochet, T., Bracken, H., Coyaji, K., Winikoff, B.
BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2014;14:276
Abstract
BACKGROUND Trials of interventions for PPH prevention and treatment rely on different measurement methods for the quantification of blood loss and identification of PPH. This study's objective was to compare measures of blood loss obtained from two different measurement protocols frequently used in studies. METHODS Nine hundred women presenting for vaginal delivery were randomized to a direct method (a calibrated delivery drape) or an indirect method (a shallow bedpan placed below the buttocks and weighing the collected blood and blood-soaked gauze/pads). Blood loss was measured from immediately after delivery for at least one hour or until active bleeding stopped. RESULTS Significantly greater mean blood loss was recorded by the direct than by the indirect measurement technique (253.9 mL and 195.3 mL, respectively; difference = 58.6 mL (95% CI: 31-86); p < 0.001). Almost twice as many women in the direct than in the indirect group measured blood loss > 500 mL (8.7% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS The study suggests a real and significant difference in blood loss measurement between these methods. Research using blood loss measurement as an endpoint needs to be interpreted taking measurement technique into consideration. TRIAL REGISTRATION This study has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01885845.