Literature DB >> 29847380

Assessing the Association Between Blood Loss and Postoperative Hemoglobin After Cesarean Delivery: A Prospective Study of 4 Blood Loss Measurement Modalities.

Kelly Fedoruk1, Katherine M Seligman2, Brendan Carvalho1, Alexander J Butwick1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Visual estimation and gravimetric methods are commonly used to quantify the volume of blood loss during cesarean delivery (CD). However, the correlation between blood loss and post-CD hemoglobin (Hb) is poorly studied, and it is unclear whether the correlation varies according to how blood loss is measured.
METHODS: After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, we performed a prospective study of 61 women undergoing CD to assess the relations between post-CD Hb and blood loss measured using 4 modalities: gravimetric blood loss measurement (gBL), visual blood loss estimation by a blinded obstetrician (oBL) and anesthesiologist (aBL), and the Triton System (tBL). Hb was measured preoperatively and within 10 minutes after CD. gBL was quantified as blood volume in a suction canister in addition to the weight of blood-soaked sponges. tBL was measured with the Triton System by photographing blood-soaked sponges and suction canister contents. To assess the relation between blood loss and post-CD Hb, we performed correlation analyses and compared the magnitude of the correlations across the 4 measurement modalities using William t test. A Bonferroni correction was set to identify a statistically significant correlation (P < .0125) and statistically significant differences between correlation coefficients (P < .008).
RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) preoperative Hb was 12 (1.1) g/dL and post-CD Hb was 11.3 (1.0) g/dL. Median (interquartile range) values for gBL, oBL, aBL, and tBL were 672 mL (266-970), 700 mL (600-800), 750 mL (600-1000), and 496 mL (374-729), respectively. A statistically significant but weak correlation was observed between tBL and post-CD Hb (r = -0.33; P = .01). No statistically significant correlations were observed among aBL (r = -0.25; P = .06), oBL (r = -0.2; P = .13), and gBL (r = -0.3; P = .03) with post-CD Hb. We did not detect any significant differences between any 2 correlation coefficients across the 4 modalities.
CONCLUSIONS: Given that we observed only weak correlations between each modality with post-CD Hb and no significant differences in the magnitude of the correlations across the 4 modalities, there may be limited clinical utility in estimating post-CD Hb from blood loss values measured with any of the 4 modalities.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 29847380     DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003449

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesth Analg        ISSN: 0003-2999            Impact factor:   5.108


  4 in total

1.  Efficacy of sonorheometry point of the care device in determining low fibrinogen levels in pregnant blood: an invitro dilution and reconstitution study.

Authors:  Bhavani Shankar Kodali; Arun Karuppiah; Shobana Bharadwaj; Jonathan Chow; Kenichi Tanaka
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2021-12-03       Impact factor: 1.977

2.  Multidisciplinary Programed Learning Simulation to Improve Visual Blood Loss Estimation for Obstetric Trauma Scenarios.

Authors:  Jane Ponterio; Maleeha Ahmad; Aparna Vancheswaran; Nisha Lakhi
Journal:  J Adv Med Educ Prof       Date:  2022-01

3.  Ultrasound-guided bilateral superficial cervical plexus block enhances the quality of recovery of uremia patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism following parathyroidectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Shenghong Hu; Teng Shu; Siqi Xu; Xia Ju; Shengbin Wang; Li Ma
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2021-09-18       Impact factor: 2.217

Review 4.  Comparison of common perioperative blood loss estimation techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lara Gerdessen; Patrick Meybohm; Suma Choorapoikayil; Eva Herrmann; Isabel Taeuber; Vanessa Neef; Florian J Raimann; Kai Zacharowski; Florian Piekarski
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2020-08-19       Impact factor: 2.502

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.