Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) rates in randomized trials of PPH prophylactic interventions and the effect of underlying participant PPH risk: a meta-analysis.


Journal

BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
13 Feb 2020
Historique:
received: 12 10 2018
accepted: 03 01 2020
entrez: 15 2 2020
pubmed: 15 2 2020
medline: 1 12 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) remains a leading cause of maternal mortality. Many trials assessing interventions to prevent PPH base their data on low risk women. It is important to consider the impact data collection methods may have on these results. This review aims to assess trials of PPH prophylaxis by grading trials according to the degree of risk status of the population enrolled in these trials and identify differences in the PPH rates of low risk and high risk populations. Systematic review and meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Trials were identified through CENTRAL. Trials were assessed for eligibility then graded according to antenatal risk factors and method of birth into five grades. The main outcomes were overall trial rate of minor PPH (blood loss ≥500 ml) and major PPH (> 1000 ml) and method of determining blood loss (estimated/measured). There was no relationship between minor or major PPH rate and risk grade (Kruskal-Wallis: minor - T = 0.92, p = 0.82; major - T = 0.91, p = 0.92). There was no difference in minor or major PPH rates when comparing estimation or measurement methods (Mann-Whitney: minor - U = 67, p = 0.75; major - U = 35, p = 0.72). There was however a correlation between % operative births and minor PPH rate, but not major PPH (Spearman r = 0.32 v. Spearman r = 0.098). Using data from trials using low risk women to generalise best practice guidelines might not be appropriate for all births, particularly complex births. Although complex births contribute disproportionately to PPH rates, this review showed they are often underrepresented in trials. Despite this, there was no difference in reported PPH rates between studies conducted in high and low risk groups. Method of birth was shown to be an important risk factor for minor PPH and may be a better predictor of PPH than antenatal risk factors. Women with operative births are often excluded from trials meaning a lack of data supporting interventions in these women. More focus on complex births is needed to ensure the evidence base is relevant to the target population.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) remains a leading cause of maternal mortality. Many trials assessing interventions to prevent PPH base their data on low risk women. It is important to consider the impact data collection methods may have on these results. This review aims to assess trials of PPH prophylaxis by grading trials according to the degree of risk status of the population enrolled in these trials and identify differences in the PPH rates of low risk and high risk populations.
METHODS METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Trials were identified through CENTRAL. Trials were assessed for eligibility then graded according to antenatal risk factors and method of birth into five grades. The main outcomes were overall trial rate of minor PPH (blood loss ≥500 ml) and major PPH (> 1000 ml) and method of determining blood loss (estimated/measured).
RESULTS RESULTS
There was no relationship between minor or major PPH rate and risk grade (Kruskal-Wallis: minor - T = 0.92, p = 0.82; major - T = 0.91, p = 0.92). There was no difference in minor or major PPH rates when comparing estimation or measurement methods (Mann-Whitney: minor - U = 67, p = 0.75; major - U = 35, p = 0.72). There was however a correlation between % operative births and minor PPH rate, but not major PPH (Spearman r = 0.32 v. Spearman r = 0.098).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Using data from trials using low risk women to generalise best practice guidelines might not be appropriate for all births, particularly complex births. Although complex births contribute disproportionately to PPH rates, this review showed they are often underrepresented in trials. Despite this, there was no difference in reported PPH rates between studies conducted in high and low risk groups. Method of birth was shown to be an important risk factor for minor PPH and may be a better predictor of PPH than antenatal risk factors. Women with operative births are often excluded from trials meaning a lack of data supporting interventions in these women. More focus on complex births is needed to ensure the evidence base is relevant to the target population.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32054453
doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-2719-3
pii: 10.1186/s12884-020-2719-3
pmc: PMC7020586
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

107

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 16/16/06
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : HTA/16/16/06
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : II-LA-0712-20007
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : II-LA-0715-20008
Pays : United Kingdom

Références

Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991 Jun;98(6):528-30
pubmed: 1873241
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011 Feb;112(2):98-102
pubmed: 21130990
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Oct;185(4):873-7
pubmed: 11641669
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 14;4:CD011491
pubmed: 27078125
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Apr 18;(4):CD005457
pubmed: 22513931
Prostaglandins Other Lipid Mediat. 2001 Oct;66(3):203-10
pubmed: 11577783
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(12):1448-52
pubmed: 17260220
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 29;1:CD008020
pubmed: 25631379
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015 Feb;55(1):53-8
pubmed: 25688820
Lancet. 1998 Mar 7;351(9104):693-9
pubmed: 9504513
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004 Aug 10;115(2):166-72
pubmed: 15262350
BJOG. 2010 Jul;117(8):929-36
pubmed: 20482535
Lancet Glob Health. 2016 Jan;4(1):e37-44
pubmed: 26718808
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Jan;124(1):67-71
pubmed: 24365208
PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e41114
pubmed: 22844432
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Aug 04;(8):CD006173
pubmed: 20687079
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009 Dec;280(6):893-7
pubmed: 19277690
BJOG. 2011 Feb;118(3):353-61
pubmed: 21176086
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Jun;2(6):e323-33
pubmed: 25103301
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1996 May;75(5):464-8
pubmed: 8677772
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Feb;49(2):177-187
pubmed: 28169502
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jun 07;6:CD005456
pubmed: 29879293
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 02;(3):CD007412
pubmed: 25730178
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 Oct;107(1):4-7
pubmed: 19541304
BJOG. 2016 Jan;123(1):120-7
pubmed: 26333044
BJOG. 2007 Nov;114(11):1388-96
pubmed: 17949379
BMJ. 1988 Nov 19;297(6659):1295-300
pubmed: 3144366
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Dec 19;12:CD011689
pubmed: 30569545
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 16;12(10):e0186365
pubmed: 29036203
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Sep;116(3):619-24
pubmed: 20733444
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015 Sep 28;15:230
pubmed: 26415952
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015 Dec;292(6):1231-7
pubmed: 25990482
Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Feb;105(2):294-9
pubmed: 15684155
Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Oct;128(4):805-11
pubmed: 27607864
BMJ. 2013 Mar 28;346:f1541
pubmed: 23538918
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Feb 13;(2):CD003249
pubmed: 24523225
PLoS Med. 2013 Oct;10(10):e1001524
pubmed: 24130463
BMJ. 2015 Jul 08;351:h3251
pubmed: 26156874
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2009 Mar-Apr;54(2):133-141.e1
pubmed: 19249659
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016 Nov;294(5):911-916
pubmed: 26980230
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 Jun;105(3):244-7
pubmed: 19249048
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008 May;101(2):129-32
pubmed: 18164304
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 22;9:CD009332
pubmed: 30246877
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2009 Nov 27;9:55
pubmed: 19943928
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019 Jun;32(11):1806-1812
pubmed: 29241383
BMJ. 1993 Nov 6;307(6913):1167-71
pubmed: 8251842
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Feb;119(2 Pt 1):293-300
pubmed: 22227638
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1995 Feb;58(2):147-51
pubmed: 7774741
BJOG. 2016 Dec;123(13):2164-2170
pubmed: 26694742
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Oct 30;(10):CD001808
pubmed: 24173606

Auteurs

Lydia Hawker (L)

Sanyu Research Unit, Department of Women's and Children's Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. l.a.hawker@liverpool.ac.uk.

Andrew Weeks (A)

Sanyu Research Unit, Department of Women's and Children's Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH