Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2019; 36(04): 434-439
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1669397
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Accurate Assessment of Blood Loss during Cesarean Delivery Improves Estimation of Postoperative Hemoglobin

Andrew F. Rubenstein
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, New Jersey
,
Michael Block
2   Department of Anesthesia, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, New Jersey
,
Stacy Zamudio
3   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, New Jersey
,
Claudia Douglas
4   Department of Nursing, Institute for Evidence-Based Practice and Nursing Research, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, New Jersey
,
Sharon Sledge
5   Department of Patient Safety and Quality, Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, New Jersey
,
Griffeth Tully
6   Medical Department, Gauss Surgical, Inc., Los Altos, California
,
Robert L. Thurer
6   Medical Department, Gauss Surgical, Inc., Los Altos, California
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

16 February 2018

20 July 2018

Publication Date:
24 August 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To determine if accurate blood loss determination during cesarean delivery can improve the prediction of postoperative hemoglobin levels.

Study Design This is a retrospective cohort study using visually estimated blood loss (traditional, n = 2,025) versus estimates using a mobile application that photographs sponges and canisters and calculates their hemoglobin content (device, n = 756).

Results The correlation between the actual and predicted postoperative day 1 hemoglobin value (PPO1 Hgb) was better in the device group (R 2 = 0.519, correlation = 0.720) than in the traditional group (R 2 = 0.429, correlation = 0.655) (p = 0.005). For patients in the device group where the estimated blood loss was >1,000 mL (n = 53), the PPO1 Hgb was also better correlated with the actual value (R 2 = 0.319, correlation = 0.565) than the predictions using visually estimated blood loss for those patients in the device group whose visual estimation was >1,000 mL (n = 32) (R 2 = 0.035, correlation = 0.187) (p = 0.027).

Conclusion Implementation of a device that accurately measures blood loss allows for a better prediction of postoperative day 1 hemoglobin concentration than is possible using visual blood loss estimation. This improvement was seen in the entire patient group and was particularly prominent in patients with blood losses of > 1,000 mL.

Keywords

cesarean delivery - blood loss - transfusion - postpartum hemorrhage - quality - improvement
 

  • References

  • 1 Berg CJ, Harper MA, Atkinson SM. , et al. Preventability of pregnancy-related deaths: results of a state-wide review. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106 (06) 1228-1234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 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, 3/17/15
    PubMed
  • 3 Creanga AA, Syverson C, Seed K, Callaghan WM. Pregnancy-related mortality in the United States, 2011-2013. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130 (02) 366-373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Shields LE, Wiesner S, Fulton J, Pelletreau B. Comprehensive maternal hemorrhage protocols reduce the use of blood products and improve patient safety. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (03) 272-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Main EK, Goffman D, Scavone BM. , et al; National Parternship for Maternal Safety; Council for Patient Safety in Women's Health Care. National Partnership for Maternal Safety: consensus bundle on obstetric hemorrhage. Anesth Analg 2015; 121 (01) 142-148
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Main EK, Cape V, Abreo A. , et al. Reduction of severe maternal morbidity from hemorrhage using a state perinatal quality collaborative. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 216 (03) 298.e1-298.e11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rothermel LD, Lipman JM. Estimation of blood loss is inaccurate and unreliable. Surgery 2016; 160 (04) 946-953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Brasel KJ, Guse C, Gentilello LM, Nirula R. Heart rate: is it truly a vital sign?. J Trauma 2007; 62 (04) 812-817
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Convertino VA, Moulton SL, Grudic GZ. , et al. Use of advanced machine-learning techniques for noninvasive monitoring of hemorrhage. J Trauma 2011; 71 (1, Suppl): S25-S32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ryan KL, Batchinsky A, McManus JG, Rickards CA, Convertino VA. Changes in pulse character and mental status are late responses to central hypovolemia. Prehosp Emerg Care 2008; 12 (02) 192-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Franklin C, Darovic G. Monitoring the patient in shock. In: Hemodynamic Monitoring: Invasive and Noninvasive Clinical Application, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 12 American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Perioperative Blood Management. Practice guidelines for perioperative blood management: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Perioperative Blood Management. Anesthesiology 2015; 122 (02) 241-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Carson JL, Guyatt G, Heddle NM. , et al. Clinical practice guidelines from the AABB: red blood cell transfusion thresholds and storage. JAMA 2016; 316 (19) 2025-2035
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Valeri CR, Dennis RC, Ragno G, Macgregor H, Menzoian JO, Khuri SF. Limitations of the hematocrit level to assess the need for red blood cell transfusion in hypovolemic anemic patients. Transfusion 2006; 46 (03) 365-371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Grant MC, Whitman GJ, Savage WJ, Ness PM, Frank SM. Clinical predictors of postoperative hemoglobin drift. Transfusion 2014; 54 (06) 1460-1468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. Practice Bulletin No. 183: postpartum hemorrhage. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130 (04) e168-e186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bose P, Regan F, Paterson-Brown S. Improving the accuracy of estimated blood loss at obstetric haemorrhage using clinical reconstructions. BJOG 2006; 113 (08) 919-924
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Schorn MN. Measurement of blood loss: review of the literature. J Midwifery Womens Health 2010; 55 (01) 20-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Toledo P, Eosakul ST, Goetz K, Wong CA, Grobman WA. Decay in blood loss estimation skills after web-based didactic training. Simul Healthc 2012; 7 (01) 18-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Quantification of blood loss: AWHONN practice brief number 1. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2015; 44 (01) 158-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Johar RS, Smith RP. Assessing gravimetric estimation of intraoperative blood loss. J Gynecol Surg 1993; 9 (03) 151-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lilley G, Burkett-St-Laurent D, Precious E. , et al. Measurement of blood loss during postpartum haemorrhage. Int J Obstet Anesth 2015; 24 (01) 8-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Holmes AA, Konig G, Ting V. , et al. Clinical evaluation of a novel system for monitoring surgical hemoglobin loss. Anesth Analg 2014; 119 (03) 588-594
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Konig G, Holmes AA, Garcia R. , et al. In vitro evaluation of a novel system for monitoring surgical hemoglobin loss. Anesth Analg 2014; 119 (03) 595-600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sharareh B, Woolwine S, Satish S, Abraham P, Schwarzkopf R. Real time intraoperative monitoring of blood loss with a novel tablet application. Open Orthop J 2015; 9: 422-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Doctorvaladan SV, Jelks AT, Hsieh EW, Thurer RL, Zakowski MI, Lagrew DC. Accuracy of blood loss measurement during cesarean delivery. AJP Rep 2017; 7 (02) e93-e100
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Konig G, Waters JH, Hsieh E. , et al. In vitro evaluation of a novel image processing device to estimate surgical blood loss in suction canisters. Anesth Analg 2018; 126 (02) 621-628
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Thurer RL, Castro JM, Javidroozi M, Burton K, Bernal NP. Accurate measurement of intraoperative blood loss improves prediction of postoperative hemoglobin levels. J Anesth Clin Res 2017; 8: 743
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Dilla AJ, Waters JH, Yazer MH. Clinical validation of risk stratification criteria for peripartum hemorrhage. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (01) 120-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Stafford I, Dildy GA, Clark SL, Belfort MA. Visually estimated and calculated blood loss in vaginal and cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199 (05) 519.e1-519.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Thurer RL, Katz RS, Parce P, Precopio T, Popovsky MA. By how much does a single unit transfusion increase the recipient's hemoglobin?. Transfusion 2010; 50 (suppl A): 135A
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Rubenstein AF, Zamudio S, Al-Khan A. , et al. Clinical experience with the implementation of accurate measurement of blood loss during cesarean delivery: influences on hemorrhage recognition and allogeneic transfusion. Am J Perinatol 2018; 35 (07) 655-659
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Bernal NP, Muniz Castro J, Burton K, Thurer RL. Accurate measurement of intraoperative blood loss during wound excision leads to more appropriate transfusion and reduced blood utilization. J Anesth Clin Res 2017; 8 (11) 783
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Bingham D, Scheich B, Byfield R, Wilson B, Bateman BT. Postpartum hemorrhage preparedness elements vary among hospitals in New Jersey and Georgia. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2016; 45 (02) 227-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar