PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · AJP Rep 2022; 12(01): e36-e40
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1742267
Original Article

Limitations of Gravimetric Quantitative Blood Loss during Cesarean Delivery

Robert L. Thurer
1   Medical Division, Gauss Surgical, Inc., Menlo Park, California
,
Sahar Doctorvaladan
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, California
,
Brendan Carvalho
3   Division of Obstetric Anesthesia, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
,
Andrea T. Jelks
4   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, California
› Institutsangaben Funding Gauss Surgical, Inc. supplied statistical support for the study. Gauss personnel (R.L.T.) also participated in study design, data collection, data analysis, and article preparation.
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study examined the accuracy, sources of error, and limitations of gravimetric quantification of blood loss (QBL) during cesarean delivery.

Study Design Blood loss determined by assays of the hemoglobin content on surgical sponges and in suction canisters was compared with QBL in 50 parturients.

Results QBL was moderately correlated to the actual blood loss (r = 0.564; p < 0.001). Compared with the reference assay, QBL overestimated blood loss for 44 patients (88%). QBL deviated from the assayed blood loss by more than 250 mL in 34 patients (68%) and by more than 500 mL in 16 cases (32%). Assayed blood loss was more than 1,000 mL in four patients. For three of these patients, QBL was more than 1,000 mL (sensitivity = 75%). QBL was more than 1,000 mL in 12 patients. While three of these had an assayed blood loss of more than 1,000 mL, 9 of the 46 patients with blood losses of less than 1,000 mL by the assay (20%) were incorrectly identified as having postpartum hemorrhage by QBL (false positives). The specificity of quantitative QBL for detection of blood loss more than or equal to 1,000 mL was 80.4%.

Conclusion QBL was only moderately correlated with the reference assay. While overestimation was more common than underestimation, both occurred. Moreover, QBL was particularly inaccurate when substantial bleeding occurred.

Key Points

  • QBL is inaccurate in cesarean delivery.

  • QBL deviated from the assay result by more than 500 mL in 32% of cases.

  • QBL sensitivity and specificity for hemorrhage is 75.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19–0.93) and 80.4% (95% CI: 0.69–0.92), respectively.

Keywords

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


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 16. Juni 2020

Angenommen: 02. November 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
04. Februar 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Quantification of blood loss: AWHONN practice brief number 1. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2015; 44 (01) 158-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Quantitative blood loss in obstetric hemorrhage: ACOG COMMITTEE OPINION, number 794. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 134 (06) e150-e156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Main EK, Goffman D, Scavone BM. et al; National Partnership for Maternal Safety: Consensus Bundle on Obstetric Hemorrhage. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (01) 155-162
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lyndon A, Lagrew D, Shields LE, Main E, Cape V. Improving health care response to obstetric hemorrhage version 2.0. Accessed December 16, 2021: https://www.cmqcc.org/resource/obstetric-hemorrhage-20-toolkit
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Johar RS, Smith RP. Assessing gravimetric estimation of intraoperative blood loss. J Gynecol Surg 1993; 9 (03) 151-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hamm RF, Wang E, Romanos A, O'Rourke K, Srinivas SK. Implementation of quantification of blood loss does not improve prediction of hemoglobin drop in deliveries with average blood loss. Am J Perinatol 2018; 35 (02) 134-139
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Passing H, Bablok W. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, Part I. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1983; 21 (11) 709-720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1 (8476): 307-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. Practice bulletin no. 183: postpartum hemorrhage. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130 (04) e168-e186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Petersen EE, Davis NL, 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 (18) 423-429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A. et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2014; 2 (06) e323-e333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 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
  • 14 Schorn MN. Measurement of blood loss: review of the literature. J Midwifery Womens Health 2010; 55 (01) 20-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 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
  • 16 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
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Saoud F, Stone A, Nutter A, Hankins GD, Saade GR, Saad AF. Validation of a new method to assess estimated blood loss in the obstetric population undergoing cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 221 (03) 267.e1-267.e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 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: 4-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar