A mixed method, phase 2 clinical evaluation of a novel device to treat postpartum haemorrhage.

Bimanual compression Birth Labour and delivery Medical device Postpartum haemorrhage Third stage of labour

Journal

European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology
ISSN: 1872-7654
Titre abrégé: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 0375672

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Apr 2023
Historique:
received: 02 12 2022
revised: 16 01 2023
accepted: 18 01 2023
pubmed: 3 2 2023
medline: 22 3 2023
entrez: 2 2 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

We evaluated the safety, efficacy, and acceptability of a new device designed to facilitate uterine compression in women with postpartum haemorrhage (PPH). A prospective, phase two clinical device trial with concurrent qualitative study, conducted in a UK consultant obstetric unit. The device was used in addition to standard care in women unresponsive to initial oxytocin therapy. The primary effectiveness outcome was additional blood loss of over 1000mls, whilst safety was assessed through adverse events. Interviews assessed device feasibility and acceptability, and were analysed using framework analysis. We recruited 57 women with clinical PPH after vaginal birth; 67% were primiparous and 47% had undergone operative birth. All but two (96%) had atony as a cause of the haemorrhage; in addition, 30% also had bleeding from lacerations and 11% had retained tissue. After device use, only one woman had additional blood loss over 1000mls, although 3 women (7%) needed a Bakri balloon and 14% received a blood transfusion. All but one clinician felt that the device was easy to use. Clinicians stated that the device assisted management in 85% of cases. All 56 women who responded stated that if they bled in a future birth they would want the device to be used again. There were no serious adverse events related to the device. However, 3 events were judged as 'possibly' being caused by the device - 2 minor vaginal grazes and one postnatal episiotomy infection and breakdown. Lax vaginal tissue complicated the use of the device in three women. In 47 interviews, participants, birth partners, clinician users and attending midwives viewed the device positively. Clinicians found it useful as a way of stopping blood loss and as an aid to diagnose the source of bleeding. The PPH Butterfly may provide a rapid, acceptable and effective treatment for postpartum haemorrhage. Clinical Trial Registration prospective with ISRCTN15452399 11/09/2017 (www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15452399).

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
We evaluated the safety, efficacy, and acceptability of a new device designed to facilitate uterine compression in women with postpartum haemorrhage (PPH).
METHODS METHODS
A prospective, phase two clinical device trial with concurrent qualitative study, conducted in a UK consultant obstetric unit. The device was used in addition to standard care in women unresponsive to initial oxytocin therapy. The primary effectiveness outcome was additional blood loss of over 1000mls, whilst safety was assessed through adverse events. Interviews assessed device feasibility and acceptability, and were analysed using framework analysis.
RESULTS RESULTS
We recruited 57 women with clinical PPH after vaginal birth; 67% were primiparous and 47% had undergone operative birth. All but two (96%) had atony as a cause of the haemorrhage; in addition, 30% also had bleeding from lacerations and 11% had retained tissue. After device use, only one woman had additional blood loss over 1000mls, although 3 women (7%) needed a Bakri balloon and 14% received a blood transfusion. All but one clinician felt that the device was easy to use. Clinicians stated that the device assisted management in 85% of cases. All 56 women who responded stated that if they bled in a future birth they would want the device to be used again. There were no serious adverse events related to the device. However, 3 events were judged as 'possibly' being caused by the device - 2 minor vaginal grazes and one postnatal episiotomy infection and breakdown. Lax vaginal tissue complicated the use of the device in three women. In 47 interviews, participants, birth partners, clinician users and attending midwives viewed the device positively. Clinicians found it useful as a way of stopping blood loss and as an aid to diagnose the source of bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The PPH Butterfly may provide a rapid, acceptable and effective treatment for postpartum haemorrhage. Clinical Trial Registration prospective with ISRCTN15452399 11/09/2017 (www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15452399).

Identifiants

pubmed: 36732101
pii: S0301-2115(23)00026-X
doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.01.018
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Oxytocin 50-56-6

Types de publication

Clinical Trial, Phase II Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

142-148

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest ADW and PW are co-inventors of the PPH Butterfly. The patent is held by the University of Liverpool, but ADW and PW could in future receive a share of any profits generated from commercialization. The remaining authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Andrew D Weeks (AD)

Dept. of Women's and Children's Health, University of Liverpool (a Member of Liverpool Health Partners), Liverpool, UK. Electronic address: aweeks@liv.ac.uk.

Caroline Cunningham (C)

Liverpool Women's Hospital (a Member of Liverpool Health Partners), Liverpool, UK.

Wendy Taylor (W)

University of Manchester, Manchester UK.

Anna Rosala-Hallas (A)

Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Peter Watt (P)

Dept. of Medical Physics & Clinical Engineering, Royal Liverpool University Hospital (a member of Liverpool Health Partners), Liverpool, UK.

Lucy Bryning (L)

Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation (CHEME), Bangor University, Bangor UK.

Victory Ezeofor (V)

Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation (CHEME), Bangor University, Bangor UK.

Liz Cregan (L)

Liverpool Women's Hospital (a Member of Liverpool Health Partners), Liverpool, UK.

Emma Hayden (E)

Expert By Experience, Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool, UK.

Dot Lambert (D)

Dept. of Women's and Children's Health, University of Liverpool (a Member of Liverpool Health Partners), Liverpool, UK.

Carol Bedwell (C)

Department of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (a member of Liverpool Health Partners), UK.

Steven Lane (S)

Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Tony Fisher (T)

Dept. of Medical Physics & Clinical Engineering, Royal Liverpool University Hospital (a member of Liverpool Health Partners), Liverpool, UK.

Rhiannon T Edwards (RT)

Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation (CHEME), Bangor University, UK.

Tina Lavender (T)

Department of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (a member of Liverpool Health Partners), 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