Sebastian Suarez1, Agustin Conde-Agudelo2, Anderson Borovac-Pinheiro3, Daniela Suarez-Rebling4, Melody Eckardt4, Gerhard Theron5, Thomas F Burke6. 1. Division of Global Health Innovation, Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Internal Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: ses516@mail.harvard.edu. 2. Perinatology Research Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development/National Institutes of Health/Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland, and Detroit, Michigan. 3. Division of Global Health Innovation, Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas (SP), Brazil. 4. Division of Global Health Innovation, Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa. 6. Division of Global Health Innovation, Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of uterine balloon tamponade for treating postpartum hemorrhage. STUDY DESIGN: We searched electronic databases (from their inception to August 2019) and bibliographies. We included randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized studies, and case series that reported on the efficacy, effectiveness, and/or safety of uterine balloon tamponade in women with postpartum hemorrhage. The primary outcome was the success rate of uterine balloon tamponade for treating postpartum hemorrhage (number of uterine balloon tamponade success cases/total number of women treated with uterine balloon tamponade). For meta-analyses, we calculated pooled success rate for all studies, and relative risk with 95% confidence intervals for studies that included a comparative arm. RESULTS: Ninety-one studies, including 4729 women, met inclusion criteria (6 randomized trials, 1 cluster randomized trial, 15 nonrandomized studies, and 69 case series). The overall pooled uterine balloon tamponade success rate was 85.9% (95% confidence interval, 83.9-87.9%). The highest success rates corresponded to uterine atony (87.1%) and placenta previa (86.8%), and the lowest to placenta accreta spectrum (66.7%) and retained products of conception (76.8%). The uterine balloon tamponade success rate was lower in cesarean deliveries (81.7%) than in vaginal deliveries (87.0%). A meta-analysis of 2 randomized trials that compared uterine balloon tamponade vs no uterine balloon tamponade in postpartum hemorrhage due to uterine atony after vaginal delivery showed no significant differences between the study groups in the risk of surgical interventions or maternal death (relative risk, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-16.69). A meta-analysis of 2 nonrandomized before-and-after studies showed that introduction of uterine balloon tamponade in protocols for managing severe postpartum hemorrhage significantly decreased the use of arterial embolization (relative risk, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.63). A nonrandomized cluster study reported that use of invasive procedures was significantly lower in the perinatal network that routinely used uterine balloon tamponade than that which did not use uterine balloon tamponade (3.0/1000 vs 5.1/1000; P < .01). A cluster randomized trial reported that the frequency of postpartum hemorrhage-related invasive procedures and/or maternal death was significantly higher after uterine balloon tamponade introduction than before uterine balloon tamponade introduction (11.6/10,000 vs 6.7/10,000; P = .04). Overall, the frequency of complications attributed to uterine balloon tamponade use was low (≤6.5%). CONCLUSION: Uterine balloon tamponade has a high success rate for treating severe postpartum hemorrhage and appears to be safe. The evidence on uterine balloon tamponade efficacy and effectiveness from randomized and nonrandomized studies is conflicting, with experimental studies suggesting no beneficial effect, in contrast with observational studies. Further research is needed to determine the most effective programmatic and healthcare delivery strategies on uterine balloon tamponade introduction and use.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of uterine balloon tamponade for treating postpartum hemorrhage. STUDY DESIGN: We searched electronic databases (from their inception to August 2019) and bibliographies. We included randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized studies, and case series that reported on the efficacy, effectiveness, and/or safety of uterine balloon tamponade in women with postpartum hemorrhage. The primary outcome was the success rate of uterine balloon tamponade for treating postpartum hemorrhage (number of uterine balloon tamponade success cases/total number of women treated with uterine balloon tamponade). For meta-analyses, we calculated pooled success rate for all studies, and relative risk with 95% confidence intervals for studies that included a comparative arm. RESULTS: Ninety-one studies, including 4729 women, met inclusion criteria (6 randomized trials, 1 cluster randomized trial, 15 nonrandomized studies, and 69 case series). The overall pooled uterine balloon tamponade success rate was 85.9% (95% confidence interval, 83.9-87.9%). The highest success rates corresponded to uterine atony (87.1%) and placenta previa (86.8%), and the lowest to placenta accreta spectrum (66.7%) and retained products of conception (76.8%). The uterine balloon tamponade success rate was lower in cesarean deliveries (81.7%) than in vaginal deliveries (87.0%). A meta-analysis of 2 randomized trials that compared uterine balloon tamponade vs no uterine balloon tamponade in postpartum hemorrhage due to uterine atony after vaginal delivery showed no significant differences between the study groups in the risk of surgical interventions or maternal death (relative risk, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-16.69). A meta-analysis of 2 nonrandomized before-and-after studies showed that introduction of uterine balloon tamponade in protocols for managing severe postpartum hemorrhage significantly decreased the use of arterial embolization (relative risk, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.63). A nonrandomized cluster study reported that use of invasive procedures was significantly lower in the perinatal network that routinely used uterine balloon tamponade than that which did not use uterine balloon tamponade (3.0/1000 vs 5.1/1000; P < .01). A cluster randomized trial reported that the frequency of postpartum hemorrhage-related invasive procedures and/or maternal death was significantly higher after uterine balloon tamponade introduction than before uterine balloon tamponade introduction (11.6/10,000 vs 6.7/10,000; P = .04). Overall, the frequency of complications attributed to uterine balloon tamponade use was low (≤6.5%). CONCLUSION: Uterine balloon tamponade has a high success rate for treating severe postpartum hemorrhage and appears to be safe. The evidence on uterine balloon tamponade efficacy and effectiveness from randomized and nonrandomized studies is conflicting, with experimental studies suggesting no beneficial effect, in contrast with observational studies. Further research is needed to determine the most effective programmatic and healthcare delivery strategies on uterine balloon tamponade introduction and use.
Authors: Maria Fernanda Escobar; Anwar H Nassar; Gerhard Theron; Eythan R Barnea; Wanda Nicholson; Diana Ramasauskaite; Isabel Lloyd; Edwin Chandraharan; Suellen Miller; Thomas Burke; Gabriel Ossanan; Javier Andres Carvajal; Isabella Ramos; Maria Antonia Hincapie; Sara Loaiza; Daniela Nasner Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 4.447
Authors: V Pingray; M Widmer; A Ciapponi; G J Hofmeyr; C Deneux; M Gülmezoglu; K Bloemenkamp; O T Oladapo; D Comandé; A Bardach; P Vázquez; G Cormick; F Althabe Journal: BJOG Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 7.331
Authors: Maria I Rodriguez; Mary Bullard; Jeffrey T Jensen; Kenton Gregory; Bellington Vwalika; Andrew D Barofsky; Tola Marts; Alison B Edelman Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 7.623
Authors: Mary E D'Alton; Kara M Rood; Marcela C Smid; Hyagriv N Simhan; Daniel W Skupski; Akila Subramaniam; Kelly S Gibson; Todd Rosen; Shannon M Clark; Donald Dudley; Sara N Iqbal; Michael J Paglia; Christina M Duzyj; Edward K Chien; Karen J Gibbins; Kathryn D Wine; Nana Ama A Bentum; Michelle A Kominiarek; Methodius G Tuuli; Dena Goffman Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 7.623
Authors: Joshua P Vogel; Alyce N Wilson; Nick Scott; Mariana Widmer; Fernando Althabe; Olufemi T Oladapo Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: Francisco Javier Ruiz Labarta; María Pilar Pintado Recarte; Laura Joigneau Prieto; Coral Bravo Arribas; Julia Bujan; Miguel A Ortega; Juan A De León-Luis Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2021-03-08