Yu-Na Guo1, Jue Ma1, Xiao-Jin Wang2, Bing-Shun Wang2. 1. Department of Obstetrics, International Peace Maternity & Child Health Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Shanghai, PR China. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine 280 South Chongqing Road, Shanghai 200025, PR China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the outcomes especially the puerperal morbidity of uterine gauze packing (UGP) with those of uterine balloon tamponade (UBT) in the management of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) during caesarean section (c-section). METHODS: It was considered success as no requirement for either a further therapy or hysterectomy for PPH. The postpartum infection risk was pragmatically measured as puerperal morbidity. RESULTS: The identified PPH subjects were subdivided into two groups for comparison, in which UGP or UBT was used as second-line therapy for women undergoing c-sections between January 2010 and September 2014. Of the 318 c-section subjects initially treated by basic managements for expected PPH, 99 cases underwent UGP and 66 UBT as the second-line therapies to stop persistent bleeding. The success rates of the UGP and UBT groups were 90.91 and 87.88%, respectively. Only one patient in UBT group resorted to hysterectomy. The respective rates of puerperal morbidity were 10.10 and 13.64%, with risk ratio of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.32, 1.72). There were no significant differences between the two groups even after the adjustment for potential confounding factors. CONCLUSION: UGP appears to be effective in treating PPH during c-section without an observed increase in the risk of potential postpartum infection when compared with UBT. UGP could be recommended as routine for patients who are not responding to conventional basic therapies in addressing PPH, along with the provision of appropriate training.
BACKGROUND: To compare the outcomes especially the puerperal morbidity of uterine gauze packing (UGP) with those of uterine balloon tamponade (UBT) in the management of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) during caesarean section (c-section). METHODS: It was considered success as no requirement for either a further therapy or hysterectomy for PPH. The postpartum infection risk was pragmatically measured as puerperal morbidity. RESULTS: The identified PPH subjects were subdivided into two groups for comparison, in which UGP or UBT was used as second-line therapy for women undergoing c-sections between January 2010 and September 2014. Of the 318 c-section subjects initially treated by basic managements for expected PPH, 99 cases underwent UGP and 66 UBT as the second-line therapies to stop persistent bleeding. The success rates of the UGP and UBT groups were 90.91 and 87.88%, respectively. Only one patient in UBT group resorted to hysterectomy. The respective rates of puerperal morbidity were 10.10 and 13.64%, with risk ratio of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.32, 1.72). There were no significant differences between the two groups even after the adjustment for potential confounding factors. CONCLUSION:UGP appears to be effective in treating PPH during c-section without an observed increase in the risk of potential postpartum infection when compared with UBT. UGP could be recommended as routine for patients who are not responding to conventional basic therapies in addressing PPH, along with the provision of appropriate training.
Authors: D S Yokoe; C L Christiansen; R Johnson; K E Sands; J Livingston; E S Shtatland; R Platt Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2001 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 6.883