Obstetric hemorrhage risk assessment using the maximum allowable blood loss calculation: are we on the right track?

Maximum allowable blood loss Obstetric anesthesia Obstetric hemorrhage Point-of-care testing Postpartum hemorrhage Risk assessment

Journal

International journal of obstetric anesthesia
ISSN: 1532-3374
Titre abrégé: Int J Obstet Anesth
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9200430

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
24 Sep 2024
Historique:
received: 15 07 2024
revised: 16 09 2024
accepted: 18 09 2024
medline: 30 9 2024
pubmed: 30 9 2024
entrez: 29 9 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The clinical guidelines on postpartum hemorrhage from the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) provide evidence-based recommendations structured around the 6Rs framework: Risk Assessment, Risk Reduction, Recognition and Evaluation, Reaction, Resuscitation, and Review. Since its publication, our institution has begun implementing all the guideline recommendations. One key recommendation is to calculate the Maximum Allowable Blood Loss (MABL) to reach a hemoglobin level of 70 g/L for every obstetric patient. This practice was introduced to promote an individualized approach to hemorrhage risk assessment, accounting for variations in patients' anthropometric characteristics. However, there is currently a lack of evidence supporting the use of MABL calculation in the obstetric population. In this commentary, we highlight the limitations of the MABL calculation through specific examples and propose areas for further research.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39342880
pii: S0959-289X(24)00289-9
doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2024.104277
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Letter

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

104277

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The 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

Anthony Chau (A)

Department of Anesthesia, BC Women's Hospital, Vancouver BC, Canada; Department of Anesthesia, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver BC, Canada; Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, Canada. Electronic address: anton.chau@ubc.ca.

Ilana Sebbag (I)

Department of Anesthesia, BC Women's Hospital, Vancouver BC, Canada; Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, Canada. Electronic address: ilana.sebbag@cw.bc.ca.

Eduardo Sutherland (E)

Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: sutherland@students.mq.edu.au.

Giselle Villar (G)

Department of Anesthesia, BC Women's Hospital, Vancouver BC, Canada; Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, Canada. Electronic address: gvillar@shaw.ca.

Classifications MeSH