Advertisement

Quantitative blood loss after vaginal delivery: a retrospective analysis of 104 079 measurements at 41 institutions

Published:January 12, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijoa.2022.103256

      Highlights

      • Peripartum quantitative blood loss (QBL) is recommended over visual estimation.
      • QBL measurements were obtained from 41 institutions in the United States.
      • Data from 104 079 vaginal deliveries were summarized.
      • Postpartum hemorrhage incidence was 15.2% (QBL >500 mL) and 1.0% (>1500 mL)
      • V-drape volumetric contribution to total QBL was 60.6±26.3% of the total QBL.

      Abstract

      Background

      Peripartum quantitative blood loss (QBL) measurement is recommended over visual estimation. However, QBL measurement after vaginal delivery has been inadequately evaluated. The primary aim of this study was to determine the characteristics of QBL measurements from a large, multicenter cohort of patients having vaginal deliveries. We also determined the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) and the relationship between gravimetric QBL from weighed sponges vs. volumetric QBL from liquid drape or suction cannister contents.

      Methods

      Data were collected from 41 institutions in the United States of America that use an automated QBL device after vaginal delivery as part of routine care. The QBL device tracks cumulative blood loss based on gravimetry and volumetric V-drape assessment, automatically subtracting the dry weights of all blood-containing sponges, towels, pads and other supplies as well as the amniotic fluid volume.

      Results

      Between January 2017 and April 2020, 104 079 QBL values were obtained from patients having vaginal deliveries. Total median [IQR] QBL was 171 [61–362] mL. The PPH incidence, stratified by QBL, was 15.2% (>500 mL), 3.4% (>1000 mL), and 1.0% (>1500 mL). The contribution of QBL from V-drapes was 60.6±26.3% of total QBL.

      Conclusion

      Results from this large set of QBL measurements and the PPH incidence provide normative “real-world” clinical care values that can be expected as hospitals transition from estimated blood loss to QBL to assess the blood loss at vaginal delivery.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Petersen E.E.
        • Davis N.L.
        • Goodman D.
        • et al.
        Vital Signs: Pregnancy-related deaths, United States, 2011–2015, and strategies for prevention, 13 States, 2013–2017.
        MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019; 68: 423-429https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6818e1
      1. Reale SC, Easter SR, Xu X, Bateman BT, Farber MK. Trends in postpartum hemorrhage in the United States from 2010 to 2014. Anesth Analg 2020;130:e119-e22. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004424.

      2. Quantitative blood loss in obstetric hemorrhage: ACOG COMMITTEE OPINION, Number 794. Obstet Gynecol 2019;134:e150-e6. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003564.

        • Main E.K.
        • Goffman D.
        • Scavone B.M.
        • et al.
        National partnership for maternal safety: Consensus bundle on obstetric hemorrhage.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 126: 155-162https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000869
      3. Lyndon A, Lagrew D, Shields L, Main E, Cape V. Improving health care response to obstetric hemorrhage(California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative Toolkit to Transform Maternity Care). Developed under contract# 11–10006 with the California Department of Public Health; Maternal Child and Adolescent Health Division; Published by the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative. 2015.

        • Quantification of blood loss
        AWHONN practice brief number 1.
        J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2015; 44: 158-160https://doi.org/10.1111/1552-6909.12519
        • Bingham D.
        • Scheich B.
        • Byfield R.
        • Wilson B.
        • Bateman B.T.
        Postpartum hemorrhage preparedness elements vary among hospitals in New Jersey and Georgia.
        J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2016; 45: 227-238https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogn.2015.12.003
        • Shields L.E.
        • Wiesner S.
        Obstetrical hemorrhage reporting and systems learning.
        Semin Perinatol. 2019; 43: 60-64https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2018.11.010
      4. Obstetric Hemorrhage. Available at: https://www.gausssurgical.com/obstetric-hemorrhage/. Accessed September 29, 2020.

        • Katz D.
        • Wang R.
        • O'Neil L.
        • et al.
        The association between the introduction of quantitative assessment of postpartum blood loss and institutional changes in clinical practice: an observational study.
        Int J Obstet Anesth. 2020; 42: 4-10https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijoa.2019.05.006
        • Al Kadri H.M.
        • Al Anazi B.K.
        • Tamim H.M.
        Visual estimation versus gravimetric measurement of postpartum blood loss: a prospective cohort study.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011; 283: 1207-1213https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-010-1522-1
        • Lumbreras-Marquez M.I.
        • Reale S.C.
        • Carusi D.A.
        • et al.
        Introduction of a novel system for quantitating blood loss after vaginal delivery: a retrospective interrupted time series analysis with concurrent control group.
        Anesth Analg. 2020; 130: 857-868https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000004560
        • Rubenstein A.F.
        • Zamudio S.
        • Douglas C.
        • Sledge S.
        • Thurer R.L.
        Automated quantification of blood loss versus visual estimation in 274 vaginal deliveries.
        Am J Perinatol. 2021; 38: 1031-1035https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1701507
        • Gerdessen L.
        • Meybohm P.
        • Choorapoikayil S.
        • et al.
        Comparison of common perioperative blood loss estimation techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Clin Monit Comput. 2021; 35: 245-258https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-020-00579-8
        • Bell S.F.
        • Watkins A.
        • John M.
        • et al.
        Incidence of postpartum haemorrhage defined by quantitative blood loss measurement: a national cohort.
        BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020; 20: 271https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-02971-3
        • Chau A.
        • Farber M.K.
        Do quantitative blood loss measurements and postpartum hemorrhage protocols actually make a difference? Yes, no, and maybe.
        Int J Obstet Anesth. 2020; 42: 1-3
        • Lertbunnaphong T.
        • Lapthanapat N.
        • Leetheeragul J.
        • Hakularb P.
        • Ownon A.
        Postpartum blood loss: visual estimation versus objective quantification with a novel birthing drape.
        Singapore Med J. 2016; 57: 325-328https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijoa.2020.02.001