Does the Quality of Postpartum Hemorrhage Local Protocols Improve the Identification and Management of Blood Loss after Vaginal Deliveries? A Multicenter Cohort Study.
blood transfusion
clinical practice guidelines
postpartum hemorrhage
protocol
severe maternal morbidity
vaginal delivery
Journal
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2227-9032
Titre abrégé: Healthcare (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101666525
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 May 2022
27 May 2022
Historique:
received:
27
04
2022
revised:
19
05
2022
accepted:
24
05
2022
entrez:
24
6
2022
pubmed:
25
6
2022
medline:
25
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Substandard care, which can result from a delayed recognition of the severity of blood loss, can increase maternal morbidity. Our objectives were to assess the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) and of second-line procedures in maternity units according to the quality of their PPH protocol. We used a mixed design, a prospective cohort (3442 women with PPH after vaginal delivery; February−July 2011), and an audit of the written protocols (177 French maternity units; September 2010−June 2011). A quality score was calculated for the protocol of each unit. Maternity units were classified into three categories according to this score: category 1 (total score: 0−8), category 2 (9−12.5), and category 3 (>12.5). The PPH incidence (>500 mL) was 3.2%, 3.3% and 4.6% among maternity units in categories 1, 2 and 3, respectively (p < 0.0001). The incidence of severe maternal morbidity (surgery and/or artery embolization and/or blood transfusion) was higher among maternity units in category 1 (54.8%; 95% CI: 51.9, 57.7) than in either category 2 (50.1%; 95% CI: 47.8, 52.5) or 3 (38.0%; 95% CI: 33.8, 42.4]) (p < 0.0001). The risks of severe maternal morbidity were lower for category 3 than category 1 and 2 (respectively, adjusted RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.60−0.86 and 0.77, 95% CI 0.68−0.87). Finally, maternity units with higher scores identified PPH better and used fewer curative second-line procedures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35742043
pii: healthcare10060992
doi: 10.3390/healthcare10060992
pmc: PMC9222306
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Ministère des Solidarités et de la Santé
ID : PHRCN 2009 No. 05-05
Références
PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e41114
pubmed: 22844432
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Jun;2(6):e323-33
pubmed: 25103301
Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2005 Apr;33(4):268-74
pubmed: 15894217
BJOG. 2009 Sep;116(10):1325-33
pubmed: 19538416
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007 Jun;47(3):169-75
pubmed: 17550481
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008 Nov;103(2):172-3
pubmed: 18692186
BJOG. 2004 May;111(5):495-8
pubmed: 15104617
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Oct;205(4):368.e1-8
pubmed: 22083059
Birth. 2008 Dec;35(4):283-90
pubmed: 19036040
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Oct;205:21-6
pubmed: 27566217
Matern Child Health J. 2016 Oct;20(10):2160-8
pubmed: 27395381
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Aug 24;16:242
pubmed: 27552986
Health Bull (Edinb). 2001 Nov;59(6):364-72
pubmed: 12661386
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Jul;178:21-6
pubmed: 24792537
Implement Sci. 2014 Oct 06;9:152
pubmed: 25287951
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Feb;140(2):198-204
pubmed: 29067679
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2008 Dec;22(6):999-1012
pubmed: 18819848
Am J Perinatol. 2013 Nov;30(10):833-8
pubmed: 23359234
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021 Jan;50(1):101934
pubmed: 33035719
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2018 Sep/Oct;24(5):458-464
pubmed: 29521849
Obstet Gynecol. 2006 May;107(5):977-83
pubmed: 16648399
N Engl J Med. 2008 May 1;358(18):1929-40
pubmed: 18450604
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jul;213(1):86.e1-86.e6
pubmed: 25659468
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Mar;198:12-21
pubmed: 26773243
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Feb;212(2):140-4.e1
pubmed: 25019484
BJOG. 2010 Sep;117(10):1278-87
pubmed: 20573150
Health Technol Assess. 2004 Feb;8(6):iii-iv, 1-72
pubmed: 14960256