Incidence of postpartum haemorrhage defined by quantitative blood loss measurement: a national cohort.
Epidemiology
Haemorrhage
Incidence
Measured blood loss
Postpartum
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 May 2020
06 May 2020
Historique:
received:
20
01
2020
accepted:
23
04
2020
entrez:
8
5
2020
pubmed:
8
5
2020
medline:
26
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Visual estimation of blood loss following delivery often under-reports actual bleed volume. To improve accuracy, quantitative blood loss measurement was introduced for all births in the 12 hospitals providing maternity care in Wales. This intervention was incorporated into a quality improvement programme (Obstetric Bleeding Strategy for Wales, OBS Cymru). We report the incidence of postpartum haemorrhage in Wales over a 1-year period using quantitative measurement. This prospective, consecutive cohort included all 31,341 women giving birth in Wales in 2017. Standardised training was cascaded to maternity staff in all 12 hospitals in Wales. The training comprised mock-scenarios, a video and team drills. Uptake of quantitative blood loss measurement was audited at each centre. Data on postpartum haemorrhage of > 1000 mL were collected and analysed according to mode of delivery. Data on blood loss for all maternities was from the NHS Wales Informatics Service. Biannual audit data demonstrated an increase in quantitative measurement from 52.1 to 87.8% (P < 0.001). The incidence (95% confidence intervals, CI) of postpartum haemorrhage of > 1000 mL, > 1500 mL and > 2000 mL was 8.6% (8.3 to 8.9), 3.3% (3.1 to 3.5) and 1.3% (1.2 to 1.4), respectively compared to 5%, 2% and 0.8% in the year before OBS Cymru. The incidence (95% CI) of bleeds of > 1000 mL was similar across the 12 hospitals despite widely varied size, staffing levels and case mix, median (25th to 75th centile) 8.6% (7.8-9.6). The incidence of PPH varied with mode of delivery and was mean (95% CI) 4.9% (4.6-5.2) for unassisted vaginal deliveries, 18.4 (17.1-19.8) for instrumental vaginal deliveries, 8.5 (7.7-9.4) for elective caesarean section and 19.8 (18.6-21.0) for non-elective caesarean sections. Quantitative measurement of blood loss is feasible in all hospitals providing maternity care and is associated with detection of higher rates of postpartum haemorrhage. These results have implications for the definition of abnormal blood loss after childbirth and for management and research of postpartum haemorrhage.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Visual estimation of blood loss following delivery often under-reports actual bleed volume. To improve accuracy, quantitative blood loss measurement was introduced for all births in the 12 hospitals providing maternity care in Wales. This intervention was incorporated into a quality improvement programme (Obstetric Bleeding Strategy for Wales, OBS Cymru). We report the incidence of postpartum haemorrhage in Wales over a 1-year period using quantitative measurement.
METHODS
METHODS
This prospective, consecutive cohort included all 31,341 women giving birth in Wales in 2017. Standardised training was cascaded to maternity staff in all 12 hospitals in Wales. The training comprised mock-scenarios, a video and team drills. Uptake of quantitative blood loss measurement was audited at each centre. Data on postpartum haemorrhage of > 1000 mL were collected and analysed according to mode of delivery. Data on blood loss for all maternities was from the NHS Wales Informatics Service.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Biannual audit data demonstrated an increase in quantitative measurement from 52.1 to 87.8% (P < 0.001). The incidence (95% confidence intervals, CI) of postpartum haemorrhage of > 1000 mL, > 1500 mL and > 2000 mL was 8.6% (8.3 to 8.9), 3.3% (3.1 to 3.5) and 1.3% (1.2 to 1.4), respectively compared to 5%, 2% and 0.8% in the year before OBS Cymru. The incidence (95% CI) of bleeds of > 1000 mL was similar across the 12 hospitals despite widely varied size, staffing levels and case mix, median (25th to 75th centile) 8.6% (7.8-9.6). The incidence of PPH varied with mode of delivery and was mean (95% CI) 4.9% (4.6-5.2) for unassisted vaginal deliveries, 18.4 (17.1-19.8) for instrumental vaginal deliveries, 8.5 (7.7-9.4) for elective caesarean section and 19.8 (18.6-21.0) for non-elective caesarean sections.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Quantitative measurement of blood loss is feasible in all hospitals providing maternity care and is associated with detection of higher rates of postpartum haemorrhage. These results have implications for the definition of abnormal blood loss after childbirth and for management and research of postpartum haemorrhage.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32375687
doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-02971-3
pii: 10.1186/s12884-020-02971-3
pmc: PMC7201938
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
271Subventions
Organisme : Welsh Government
ID : NA
Références
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Nov;199(5):519.e1-7
pubmed: 18639209
BMJ. 2018 Sep 4;362:k3546
pubmed: 30181338
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006 Jun;93(3):220-4
pubmed: 16626718
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015 Sep 28;15:230
pubmed: 26415952
BMJ. 2010 Feb 01;340:c293
pubmed: 20123835
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2008 Dec;22(6):999-1012
pubmed: 18819848
Br J Anaesth. 2017 Sep 1;119(3):411-421
pubmed: 28969312
Aust J Midwifery. 2003 Jun;16(2):21-4
pubmed: 15553427
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2014 Dec;43(10):936-50
pubmed: 25447386
BJOG. 2006 Aug;113(8):919-24
pubmed: 16907938
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 13;9:CD010980
pubmed: 30211952
Blood. 2014 Sep 11;124(11):1727-36
pubmed: 25024304
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Apr;59(2):228-234
pubmed: 29787638
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;212(3):272-80
pubmed: 25025944
Int J Obstet Anesth. 2015 Feb;24(1):8-14
pubmed: 25433576
BJOG. 2014 Jun;121(7):876-88
pubmed: 24517180
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011 May;90(5):421-8
pubmed: 21332452
PLoS One. 2018 Sep 26;13(9):e0203806
pubmed: 30256808
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Oct;205(4):368.e1-8
pubmed: 22083059
PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e41114
pubmed: 22844432
Anesth Analg. 2007 Dec;105(6):1736-40, table of contents
pubmed: 18042876
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1991 Jan 30;38(2):119-24
pubmed: 1995380
BJOG. 2017 Apr;124(5):e106-e149
pubmed: 27981719
BJOG. 2019 Jan;126(1):83-93
pubmed: 29920912
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010 Jan-Feb;55(1):20-7
pubmed: 20129226
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018 Dec;298(6):1071-1077
pubmed: 30225686
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012 Jun;162(2):160-4
pubmed: 22429477
Br J Anaesth. 2017 Sep 1;119(3):422-434
pubmed: 28969328
Int J Obstet Anesth. 2019 Feb;37:106-117
pubmed: 30322667