OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare visually estimated blood loss (vEBL) with calculated estimated blood loss (cEBL) according to mode of delivery and degree of perineal laceration. STUDY DESIGN: Pre- and postdelivery hematocrit (HCT) and other variables including vEBL were prospectively recorded into an obstetrical database between January and September 2005. The cEBL was derived by multiplying the calculated pregnancy blood volume (0.75 x {[maternal height (inches) x 50] + [maternal weight in pounds x 25]}) by percent of blood volume lost ({predelivery HCT - postdelivery HCT}/predelivery HCT). cEBL and vEBL were compared according to mode of delivery and degree of perineal laceration. RESULTS: There were 677 subjects with complete data. vEBL was statistically different from cEBL between each degree of laceration and between all modes of delivery, demonstrating an underestimation of vEBL with increasing cEBL. CONCLUSION: Improved methods for calculating blood loss include the use of a modified version of the formula used for pregnancy blood volume calculation.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare visually estimated blood loss (vEBL) with calculated estimated blood loss (cEBL) according to mode of delivery and degree of perineal laceration. STUDY DESIGN: Pre- and postdelivery hematocrit (HCT) and other variables including vEBL were prospectively recorded into an obstetrical database between January and September 2005. The cEBL was derived by multiplying the calculated pregnancy blood volume (0.75 x {[maternal height (inches) x 50] + [maternal weight in pounds x 25]}) by percent of blood volume lost ({predelivery HCT - postdelivery HCT}/predelivery HCT). cEBL and vEBL were compared according to mode of delivery and degree of perineal laceration. RESULTS: There were 677 subjects with complete data. vEBL was statistically different from cEBL between each degree of laceration and between all modes of delivery, demonstrating an underestimation of vEBL with increasing cEBL. CONCLUSION: Improved methods for calculating blood loss include the use of a modified version of the formula used for pregnancy blood volume calculation.
Authors: Shayna N Conner; Methodius G Tuuli; Ryan Colvin; Anthony L Shanks; George A Macones; Alison G Cahill Journal: Am J Perinatol Date: 2015-05-22 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Nathan T Connell; Paula D James; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Rezan Abdul-Kadir; Barbara Ameer; Alice Arapshian; Susie Couper; Jorge Di Paola; Jeroen Eikenboom; Nicolas Giraud; Jean M Grow; Sandra Haberichter; Vicki Jacobs-Pratt; Barbara A Konkle; Peter Kouides; Michael Laffan; Michelle Lavin; Frank W G Leebeek; Claire McLintock; Simon McRae; Robert Montgomery; Sarah H O'Brien; James S O'Donnell; Margareth C Ozelo; Nikole Scappe; Robert Sidonio; Alberto Tosetto; Angela C Weyand; Mohamad A Kalot; Nedaa Husainat; Reem A Mustafa; Veronica H Flood Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2021-01-26
Authors: Marian Knight; William M Callaghan; Cynthia Berg; Sophie Alexander; Marie-Helene Bouvier-Colle; Jane B Ford; K S Joseph; Gwyneth Lewis; Robert M Liston; Christine L Roberts; Jeremy Oats; James Walker Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2009-11-27 Impact factor: 3.007