BACKGROUND: Refusal of blood transfusion by Jehovah's Witness (JW) women poses potential problems for obstetrics worldwide as haemorrhage remains a major cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. There is a general consensus that morbidity and mortality rates in association with childbirth and gynaecological interventions are higher in these women than in the general population. We conducted a postal questionnaire survey of current practice among U.K. consultant obstetricians and gynaecologists to establish the practices that could contribute to poor outcomes in these women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The main variables of interest were: use of a multi-disciplinary approach; the acceptable minimum haemoglobin (Hb) concentration before vaginal delivery and abdominal hysterectomy as low to medium risk scenarios and open myomectomy as a high risk scenario for haemorrhage; Hb concentration thresholds for iron supplementation; and the use of oral iron, intravenous iron, erythropoietin and cell salvage as potential management tools. RESULTS: The response rate was 28%. Sixty percent of gynaecologists and 85% of obstetricians reported having a protocol for the management of JW women. Forty-six percent of consultants adopt a multi-disciplinary approach which include anaesthetists and haematologists. A Hb concentration of >11-12 g/dL is considered the minimum acceptable level by a majority (47%) prior to normal delivery and by 42% of gynaecologists prior to abdominal hysterectomy. For open myomectomy 28% of gynaecologists prefer a minimum level of 11-12 g/dL but a further 31% of gynaecologists prefer a minimum level of 12-13 g/dL. DISCUSSION: A small but substantial proportion of consultants do not have protocols, operate on JW women with low Hb concentrations, do not use a lower Hb concentration threshold for supplementation, and do not adopt a multi-disciplinary approach, all of which could contribute to the reported poor outcomes in these women.
BACKGROUND: Refusal of blood transfusion by Jehovah's Witness (JW) women poses potential problems for obstetrics worldwide as haemorrhage remains a major cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. There is a general consensus that morbidity and mortality rates in association with childbirth and gynaecological interventions are higher in these women than in the general population. We conducted a postal questionnaire survey of current practice among U.K. consultant obstetricians and gynaecologists to establish the practices that could contribute to poor outcomes in these women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The main variables of interest were: use of a multi-disciplinary approach; the acceptable minimum haemoglobin (Hb) concentration before vaginal delivery and abdominal hysterectomy as low to medium risk scenarios and open myomectomy as a high risk scenario for haemorrhage; Hb concentration thresholds for iron supplementation; and the use of oral iron, intravenous iron, erythropoietin and cell salvage as potential management tools. RESULTS: The response rate was 28%. Sixty percent of gynaecologists and 85% of obstetricians reported having a protocol for the management of JW women. Forty-six percent of consultants adopt a multi-disciplinary approach which include anaesthetists and haematologists. A Hb concentration of >11-12 g/dL is considered the minimum acceptable level by a majority (47%) prior to normal delivery and by 42% of gynaecologists prior to abdominal hysterectomy. For open myomectomy 28% of gynaecologists prefer a minimum level of 11-12 g/dL but a further 31% of gynaecologists prefer a minimum level of 12-13 g/dL. DISCUSSION: A small but substantial proportion of consultants do not have protocols, operate on JW women with low Hb concentrations, do not use a lower Hb concentration threshold for supplementation, and do not adopt a multi-disciplinary approach, all of which could contribute to the reported poor outcomes in these women.
Authors: Joseph Mumba Zulu; Mpala Mwanza Lisulo; Ellen Besa; Patrick Kaonga; Caroline C Chisenga; Mumba Chomba; Michelo Simuyandi; Rosemary Banda; Paul Kelly Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-25 Impact factor: 3.240