Limitations of Gravimetric Quantitative Blood Loss during Cesarean Delivery

Author:

Thurer Robert L.1,Doctorvaladan Sahar2,Carvalho Brendan3,Jelks Andrea T.4

Affiliation:

1. Medical Division, Gauss Surgical, Inc., Menlo Park, California

2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, California

3. Division of Obstetric Anesthesia, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California

4. Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, California

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

Publisher

Georg Thieme Verlag KG

Subject

Obstetrics and Gynecology,Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health

Reference17 articles.

1. Quantification of blood loss: AWHONN practice brief number 1;J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs,2015

2. Quantitative blood loss in obstetric hemorrhage: ACOG COMMITTEE OPINION, number 794;Obstet Gynecol,2019

3. National Partnership for Maternal Safety: Consensus Bundle on Obstetric Hemorrhage;E K Main;Obstet Gynecol,2015

4. Assessing gravimetric estimation of intraoperative blood loss;R S Johar;J Gynecol Surg,1993

5. Implementation of quantification of blood loss does not improve prediction of hemoglobin drop in deliveries with average blood loss;R F Hamm;Am J Perinatol,2018

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3