Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2018; 35(07): 655-659
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1613675
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Clinical Experience with the Implementation of Accurate Measurement of Blood Loss during Cesarean Delivery: Influences on Hemorrhage Recognition and Allogeneic Transfusion

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

Publication History

10 August 2017

15 November 2017

Publication Date:
05 December 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This article compares hemorrhage recognition and transfusion using accurate, contemporaneous blood loss measurement versus visual estimation during cesarean deliveries.

Study Design 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 Blood loss > 1,000 mL was recognized in 1.9% of traditional visual estimation patients, while measured blood loss of > 1,000 mL occurred in 8.2% of device patients (p < 0.0001). In both groups, this was accompanied by a greater decrease in transfusion-adjusted hemoglobin levels than occurred in patients without hemorrhage (p < 0.0001). Despite similar transfusion rates (1.6% in both groups), fewer red cell units were given to transfused patients in the device group (1.83 ± 0.58 versus 2.56 ± 1.68 units; p = 0.038). None of the patients in the device group received plasma or cryoprecipitate. Seven patients in the traditional group received these products (p = 0.088). Device use was associated with shorter hospital stays (4.0 ± 2.3 versus 4.4 ± 2.9 days; p = 0.0006).

Conclusion The device identified hemorrhages more frequently than visual estimation. Device-detected hemorrhages appeared clinically relevant. Blood product transfusion was reduced possibly due to earlier recognition and treatment, although further studies are needed to verify the conclusion.

Keywords

cesarean delivery - blood loss - 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google 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. Stanford, CA: Published by the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, 3/17/15
    PubMed
  • 3 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Brasel KJ, Guse C, Gentilello LM, Nirula R. Heart rate: is it truly a vital sign?. J Trauma 2007; 62 (04) 812-817
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Orlinsky M, Shoemaker W, Reis ED, Kerstein MD. Current controversies in shock and resuscitation. Surg Clin North Am 2001; 81 (06) 1217-1262
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Schorn MN. Measurement of blood loss: review of the literature. J Midwifery Womens Health 2010; 55 (01) 20-27
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses. Quantification of blood loss: AWHONN practice brief number 1. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2015; 44 (01) 158-160
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Johar RS, Smith RP. Assessing gravimetric estimation of intraoperative blood loss. J Gynecol Surg 1993; 9 (03) 151-154
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 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
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Dilla AJ, Waters JH, Yazer MH. Clinical validation of risk stratification criteria for peripartum hemorrhage. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (01) 120-126
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Thurer RL, Katz RS, Parce P. , et al. By how much does a single unit transfusion increase the recipient's hemoglobin?. Transfusion 2010; 50 (suppl A): 135A
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Shields LE, Smalarz K, Reffigee L, Mugg S, Burdumy TJ, Propst M. Comprehensive maternal hemorrhage protocols improve patient safety and reduce utilization of blood products. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205 (04) 368.e1-368.e8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar