Postpartum hemorrhage in Suriname: A national descriptive study of hospital births and an audit of case management.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of direct maternal mortality globally and in Suriname. We aimed to study the prevalence, risk indicators, causes, and management of PPH to identify opportunities for PPH reduction.
METHODS: A nationwide retrospective descriptive study of all hospital deliveries in Suriname in 2017 was performed. Logistic regression analysis was applied to identify risk indicators for PPH (≥ 500ml blood loss). Management of severe PPH (blood loss ≥1,000ml or ≥500ml with hypotension or at least three transfusions) was evaluated via a criteria-based audit using the national guideline.
RESULTS: In 2017, the prevalence of PPH and severe PPH in Suriname was 9.2% (n = 808/8,747) and 2.5% (n = 220/8,747), respectively. PPH varied from 5.8% to 15.8% across the hospitals. Risk indicators associated with severe PPH included being of African descent (Maroon aOR 2.1[95%CI 1.3-3.3], Creole aOR 1.8[95%CI 1.1-3.0]), multiple pregnancy (aOR 3.4[95%CI 1.7-7.1]), delivery in Hospital D (aOR 2.4[95%CI 1.7-3.4]), cesarean section (aOR 3.9[95%CI 2.9-5.3]), stillbirth (aOR 6.4 [95%CI 3.4-12.2]), preterm birth (aOR 2.1[95%CI 1.3-3.2]), and macrosomia (aOR 2.8 [95%CI 1.5-5.0]). Uterine atony (56.7%, n = 102/180[missing 40]) and retained placenta (19.4%, n = 35/180[missing 40]), were the main causes of severe PPH. A criteria-based audit revealed that women with severe PPH received prophylactic oxytocin in 61.3% (n = 95/155[missing 65]), oxytocin treatment in 68.8% (n = 106/154[missing 66]), and tranexamic acid in 4.9% (n = 5/103[missing 117]).
CONCLUSIONS: PPH prevalence and risk indicators in Suriname were similar to international and regional reports. Inconsistent blood loss measurement, varied maternal and perinatal characteristics, and variable guideline adherence contributed to interhospital prevalence variation. PPH reduction in Suriname can be achieved through prevention by practicing active management of the third stage of labor in every birth and considering risk factors, early recognition by objective and consistent blood loss measurement, and prompt treatment by adequate administration of oxytocin and tranexamic acid according to national guidelines.

Introduction

Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) remains the most frequent cause of maternal mortality, accounting for 27% of maternal deaths worldwide [1]. Most of these deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and are associated with limited access to timely and quality care and inadequate availability of resources such as blood products [2, 3]. PPH has become more prevalent due to increasing rates of advanced maternal age, obesity, preeclampsia, prolonged labor, cesarean delivery, and multiple pregnancies [4-7]. Besides, PPH contributes to severe maternal morbidity and permanent disability worldwide [8]. Global PPH prevalence ranges from 6 to 10% but varies widely between and within countries [9-11]. In Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), the estimated prevalence of PPH is between 8.2% and 8.9%, and severe PPH (defined as blood loss ≥ 1,000 ml) occurred between 3.3% and 5.3% of births [10, 11].

The main causes of PPH are the “4 T’s”: uterine atony (tone, 80%), genital tract laceration (trauma, 13%), retained placenta or placental tissue (tissue, 5%), and coagulopathy (thrombin, 2%) [8, 12, 13]. While risk indicators are associated with various socio-demographics, pregnancy complications, and delivery characteristics, many women experience PPH without exhibiting any specific risk indicator [12, 14, 15]. Therefore, prevention, early recognition, and prompt PPH treatment for each woman remain the cornerstone to avoid maternal morbidity and mortality [13, 16, 17].

In Suriname, PPH was the leading direct cause of maternal mortality responsible for 20% (n = 13/65) of deaths from 2010 to 2014. Delays in diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment were critical factors contributing to these deaths [17]. A national PPH guideline developed in 2016 incorporates international recommendations for prevention (screening for and treating anemia and active management of the third stage of labor (AMTSL)), early recognition (measurement or visual estimation of the amount of blood loss and clinical signs), and management (oxytocin prevention and therapy and tranexamic acid use) [18]. However, no detailed information on PPH prevalence, causes, and risk indicators were available for Suriname. Therefore, this study aimed to (1) assess the prevalence of PPH, (2) identify risk indicators and underlying causes of PPH, and (3) evaluate the management of severe PPH by performing a criteria-based audit. Specific gaps identified provide evidence to guide further efforts to reduce PPH-related maternal mortality and morbidity.

Methods

Study design and setting

A nationwide retrospective descriptive study of all hospital deliveries was conducted in Suriname between January 1st and December 31st, 2017. In addition, a criteria-based audit was performed to analyze case management of severe PPH.

Suriname is a middle-income country on the northern coast of South America with the lowest population density on the continent. More than 80% of the estimated population of 583,200 lives in urban and rural coastal lowlands [19]. The ethnic distribution includes Hindustani (27%), Maroon (22%), Creole (16%), Javanese (14%), mixed (combination of ethnicities– 13%), Indigenous (4%), and others (Chinese, Brazilian, Caucasian, and unknown– 4%) [20]. Maroons and Creoles are of African ancestry, while Hindustani and Javanese are of Asian descent. Of the approximately 10,000 deliveries per year, 92% are institutional (86% hospital, 6% primary care) [20]. Four out of five major hospitals are in the capital Paramaribo; one is located at the western border of Suriname (Nickerie). All complicated pregnancies and births in primary care, including women with ongoing or severe PPH, are transferred to the nearest hospital. Every hospital has an intensive care unit (ICU).

Data collection and variables

Birth attendants documented each birth with gestational age ≥ 22 weeks and birth weight of ≥ 500 grams in a parturition book. The blood loss amount was usually visually estimated. In the case of estimated high blood loss, blood in the bedpan was measured with a measuring jug (mL) or the pads were weighted (grams = mL). However, in two hospitals, only blood clots were measured [18]. Hospital administrative personnel anonymously entered data from the paper parturition books into a password-secured digital database on a daily basis. The datasets from the five hospitals were merged, yielding one national delivery database for 2017. Missing and incorrect data were crosschecked with the original parturition books and medical files. The Surinamese Obstetric Surveillance System (SurOSS) identified all women with potentially life-threatening disorders in pregnancy between March 2017 and February 2018 [21]. Study data for the criteria-based audit were derived from this database.

The primary outcome variable of our study was PPH, which was defined as a blood loss of at least 500 ml within 24 hours postpartum. Moderate PPH was defined as blood loss between 500 and 999 ml. Severe PPH was defined as blood loss of at least 1,000 ml, bleeding associated with hypotension (systolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg with a pulse rate higher than 90 beats per minute), or transfusion of at least three units of blood products based on the criteria of SurOSS [21]. The available independent variables (maternal, pregnancy, and delivery characteristics) were categorized according to international classifications (S1 Fig in S1 File). The criteria-based audit was confined to severe PPH. Prevention and management of severe PPH were audited using the national PPH guideline [18]. Detailed information on the cause, course, and management of severe PPH was not always available (S2 Fig in S1 File). This manuscript was written in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Guidelines [22].

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 24.0 (Armonk, New York, USA) and SAS v9.4 (SAS Institute, Gary Indiana). Frequencies of maternal, delivery and perinatal characteristics were calculated in women with and without PPH. Logistic regression was used to investigate the independent association of risk indicators with moderate and severe PPH. Univariate regression analysis generated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The multivariable regression analysis included all variables with a p-value < 0.10 from the univariate analysis and variables reported by the literature as important risk indicators (e.g., multiple gestations, parity). These were presented as adjusted OR (aOR) with 95% CI. A Pareto chart was used to prioritize areas for the quality of care improvement, applying the “80–20 rule” of the Pareto principle, which suggests that most problems (80%) are due to a few key causes (20%) [23]. Clinical management of PPH was reported as frequencies and percentages after applying the audit criteria. Pearson correlation was used to evaluate the association between blood loss, units of blood transfused, and ICU admission.

Ethical considerations

This research was performed according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The ethical review board of the Surinamese Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects approved the study on maternal morbidity on October 4th, 2016 (VG21-16) and the study on postpartum hemorrhage on September 8th, 2018 (VG11-18). The registry data was anonymous and aggregated, and the need for individual consent was waived.

Results

Blood loss was documented in 96.4% (n = 8,747/9,071) of the hospital deliveries in 2017 (Table 1). The median blood loss of all included women who gave birth was 150 ml (range 0–4,620). PPH occurred in 9.2% (n = 808/8,747) of the deliveries, with 6.7% (n = 588/8,747) being moderate and 2.5% (n = 220/8,747) severe PPH. The diagnosis of severe PPH was based on blood loss of more than 1,000 ml in 82.7% (n = 182/220) of women, and in 17.3% (n = 38/220) blood loss was moderate, but at least three units of blood products were transfused, or there was hemodynamic instability. In Table 1, the maternal, perinatal and delivery characteristics of the births with and without PPH are compared. Pre-delivery anemia occurred in 34.9% (n = 65/186 [missing 622]) of women with PPH. Women of African descent were more frequently anemic antepartum (63.0%, n = 677/1,074) than women from other ethnicities were (based on data availability of only two hospitals). The prevalence of PPH was higher in women delivered by cesarean section (CS) than those delivered by a vaginal birth (20.8%, n = 400/1,924 vs 6.0%, n = 408/6,823, respectively, p<0.01). There were nine maternal deaths, three of which were complicated by PPH. Information on blood loss was most frequently missing in CS (65.7%, n = 213/324), low birth weight (29.1%, n = 94/324), and preterm births (25.7%, n = 81/324) (Table 1).

Table 1

Maternal, perinatal, and delivery characteristics of births in Suriname in 2017 with and without postpartum hemorrhage and undocumented blood loss.

	No PPH n (%)	Moderate PPH1 n (%)	Severe PPH2 n (%)	Undocumented blood loss n (%)
Total	7,939 (100%)	588 (100%)	220 (100%)	324 (100%)
Live births	7,811 (98.4)	577 (98.1)	200 (91.9)	301 (92.9)
Stillbirths	128 (1.6)	11 (1.9)	20 (9.1)	23 (7.1)
Maternal characteristics
Age (years)
12–19	1,164 (14.7)	64 (10.9)	24 (10.9)	37 (11.5)
20–34	5,678 (71.6)	421 (71.6)	147 (66.8)	228 (70.8)
≥ 35	1,087 (13.7)	103 (17.5)	49 (22.3)	57 (17.7)
Missing	10	0	0	2
Ethnicity
Maroon	2,271 (28.8)	151 (25.9)	80 (36.4)	82 (26.0)
Creole	1,709 (21.7)	124 (21.2)	52 (23.6)	85 (27.0)
Hindustani	1,469 (18.6)	88 (15.0)	27 (12.3)	71 (22.5)
Other3	1,301 (16.5)	118 (20.2)	29 (13.2)	46 (14.6)
Javanese	835 (10.6)	76 (13)	21 (9.5)	22 (7.0)
Indigenous	295 (3.7)	27 (4.6)	11 (5.0)	9 (2.9)
Missing	59	4	0	9
Maternal HIV status
Positive	58 (0.8)	5 (0.9)	2 (1.0)	3 (0.9)
Missing	333	24	11	0
Pregnancy characteristics
Parity
0	2,729 (34.5)	205 (35)	65 (29.5)	113 (36.1)
1–4	4,579 (57.8)	334 (57)	125 (56.8)	174 (55.6)
≥ 5	612 (7.7)	47 (8)	30 (13.6)	26 (8.3)
Missing	19	2	0	11
Gestational age
< 32 weeks	231 (2.9)	12 (2)	17 (7.8)	34 (10.8)
32–36 weeks	806 (10.2)	79 (13.5)	45 (20.5)	47 (14.9)
≥ 37 weeks	6,863(86.4)	495 (84.5)	157 (71.7)	234 (74.3)
Missing	39	2	1	9
Antepartum anemia
Anemia4	990 (37.6)	46 (34.3)	19 (36.5)	30 (36.6)
Missing	5,307	454	168	242
Type of pregnancy
Multiple pregnancy	88 (1.1)	9 (1.5)	10 (4.5)	9 (2.8)
Delivery characteristics
Hospital of delivery
A	1,884 (23.7)	91 (15.5)	44 (20.0)	82 (25.3)
B	2,379 (30.0)	130 (22.1)	53 (24.1)	92 (28.4)
C	333 (4.2)	24 (4.1)	10 (4.5)	24 (4.1)
D	1,977 (24.9)	277 (47.1)	94 (42.7)	108 (33.3)
E	1,366 (17.2)	66 (11.2)	19 (8.6)	42 (13.0)
Onset of labor
Augmentation	1,771 (47.4)	86 (45.7)	38 (48.1)	32 (33.0)
Missing	4,202	400	141	227
Mode of delivery
Spontaneous	6,289 (79.2)	267 (45.4)	127 (57.7)	107 (33)
Cesarean section	1,524 (19.2)	311 (52.9)	89 (40.5)	213 (65.7)
Instrumental	126 (1.6)	10 (1.7)	4 (1.8)	4 (1.2)
Vaginal laceration
2nd grade or higher	1,644 (50.6)	86 (55.8)	26 (41.9)	19 (29.7)
Missing	4,961	434	158	260
Birthweight (grams)
< 2,500	1,115 (14.1)	69 (11.7)	48 (22.2)	94 (29.1)
2,500–3,999	6,582 (83.2)	483 (82.6)	154 (71.3)	219 (67.8)
≥ 4,000	211 (2.7)	33 (5.6)	14 (6.5)	10 (3.1)
Missing	31	3	4	1

1 Blood loss 500–999 ml.

2 Blood loss ≥ 1,000 ml or blood loss < 1,000 ml with hemodynamic instability or three or more units blood transfusion.

3 Ethnicity other: Mixed, Chinese, Brazilian, Caucasian, or unknown.

4 Hemoglobin ≤ 100 g/l or 6.1 mmol/l.

The prevalence of moderate and severe PPH in the hospitals varied significantly between 4.5 to 11.8% (p<0.001) and 1.3 to 4.0% (p<0.001), respectively, with the highest prevalence in Hospital D and the lowest in Hospital E (Fig 1). CS prevalence was highest in Hospitals D (24.6%, n = 604/2,456) and E (37.8%, n = 564/1,493) and lowest in Hospital C (14.4%, n = 53/367) (S1 Table in S1 File). PPH after CS was more common in Hospital D than in other hospitals (48.4% vs 6.9–13.9%, p<0.001). In Hospitals A, B, and D, women giving birth were more often of African descent (68.0% vs 51.8% vs 55.5%) compared to Hospitals C (5.8%) and E (26.6%). AMTSL (by administration of oxytocin for PPH prevention) was applied less frequently for severe PPH cases in Hospital D than in the other hospitals (46%, n = 29/155 [missing 65] vs 67.9–77.8%) (S1 Table in S1 File).

Fig 1

Prevalence of moderate and severe postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) per hospital in Suriname in 2017.

The logistic regression analysis for moderate and severe PPH is presented in Table 2. Women of Creole and Maroon ethnicity had significantly higher odds of developing severe PPH than Hindustani women did (aOR 1.8 [95%CI 1.1–3.0] vs 2.1 [95%CI 1.3–3.3], respectively). Women delivering in Hospital D were more likely to experience moderate (aOR 2.7 [95%CI 2.2–3.4]) and severe PPH (aOR 2.4 [95%CI 1.7–3.4]) compared to Hospital B. Also, the risk of both moderate and severe PPH was significantly higher in women delivering by CS (aOR 5.4 [95%CI 4.5–6.6] vs aOR 3.9 [95%CI 2.9–5.3]) compared to vaginal delivery. Other strongly associated risk indicators for severe PPH were stillbirths (aOR 6.4 [95%CI 3.4–12.2]), multiple pregnancy (aOR 3.4 [95%CI 1.7–7.1]), very preterm birth (aOR 2.3 [95%CI 1.1–4.9]), preterm birth (aOR 2.1 [95%CI 1.3–3.2]), and neonatal macrosomia (aOR 2.8 [95%CI 1.5–5.0]). At least one risk indicator was present in 70.1% (n = 6,130/8,747) of the births without PPH and in 80.8% (n = 653/808) of births complicated by PPH.

Table 2

Univariate and multivariate logistic regression for moderate and severe postpartum hemorrhage (PPH).

	Moderate PPH1		Severe PPH2
	Unadjusted Odds ratio (95% CI)	Adjusted3 Odds ratio (95% CI)	Unadjusted Odds ratio (95% CI)	Adjusted3 Odds ratio (95% CI)
		p = 0.003	p < 0.001	p < 0.001
Live birth	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference
Stillbirth	1.2 (0.6–2.2)	2.9 (1.4–6.0)	6.1 (3.7–10.0)	6.4 (3.4–12.2)
Maternal characteristics
Age (years)	p = 0.004		p = 0.001
12–19	0.7 (0.6–1.0)	0.8 (0.6–1.1)	0.8 (0.5–1.2)	0.8 (0.5–1.3)
20–34	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference
≥ 35	1.3 (1.2–1.7)	1.1 (0.9–1.4)	1.7 (1.3–2.4)	1.4 (0.9–2.0)
Ethnicity	p = 0.02	p = 0.001	p = 0.04	p = 0.07
Maroon	1.1 (0.9–1.5)	1.5 (1.1–2.0)	1.9 (1.2–3.0)	2.1 (1.3–3.3)
Creole	1.2 (0.9–1.6)	1.5 (1.1–2.0)	1.7 (1.0–2.7)	1.8 (1.1–3.0)
Hindustani	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference
Other4	1.5 (1.1–2.0)	1.8 (1.3–2.4)	1.2 (0.7–2.1)	1.3 (0.8–2.3)
Javanese	1.5 (1.1–2.1)	2.0 (1.4–2.8)	1.4 (0.8–2.4)	1.9 (1.0–3.4)
Indigenous	1.5 (1.0–2.4)	1.5 (0.9–2.5)	2.0 (1.0–4.1)	2.0 (0.9–4.1)
Maternal HIV status
Positive	1.2 (0.5–2.9)		1.3 (0.3–5.2)
Negative	Reference		Reference
Pregnancy characteristics
Parity			p = 0.005
0	1.0 (0.7–1.2)	1.1 (0.9–1.3)	0.9 (0.6–1.2)	1.1 (0.8–1.5)
1–4	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference
≥ 5	1.1 (0.8–1.5)	1.1 (0.8–1.6)	1.8 (1.2–2.7)	1.2 (0.8–1.9)
Gestational age	p = 0.03	p = 0.05	p < 0.001	p = 0.004
< 32 weeks	0.7 (0.4–1.3)	1.2 (0.6–2.4)	3.2 (1.9–5.4)	2.3 (1.1–4.9)
32–36 weeks	1.4 (1.1–1.7)	1.5 (1.1–2.0)	2.4 (1.7–3.4)	2.1 (1.3–3.2)
≥ 37 weeks	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference
Antepartum anemia
No anemia	Reference		Reference
Anemia5	0.9 (0.6–1.3)		1.0 (0.5–1.8)
Type of pregnancy			p < 0.001	p < 0.001
Singleton	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference
Multiple	1.4 (0.7–2.8)	1.4 (0.6–3.0)	4.3 (2.2–8.3)	3.4 (1.7–7.1)
Delivery characteristics
Hospitals	p < 0.001	p < 0.001	p < 0.001	p < 0.001
A	0.9 (0.7–1.2)	1.0 (0.7–1.3)	1.1 (0.7–1.6)	1.0 (0.6–1.5)
B	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference
C	1.3 (0.8–2.1)	1.7 (1.0–2.8)	1.4 (0.7–2.7)	2.1 (1.0–4.4)
D	2.6 (2.1–3.2)	2.7 (2.2–3.4)	2.1 (1.5–3.0)	2.4 (1.7–3.4)
E	0.9 (0.7–1.2)	0.6 (0.4–0.8)	0.6 (0.4–1.1)	0.5 (0.3–0.9)
Onset of labor
Spontaneous	Reference		Reference
Augmentation	0.9 (0.7–1.3)		1.0 (0.7–1.6)
Mode of delivery	p < 0.001	p < 0.001	p < 0.001
Spontaneous	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference
Instrumental	1.9 (1.0–3.6)	2.1 (1.1–4.1)	1.6 (0.6–4.3)	2.1 (0.9–6.1)
Caesarean section	4.8 (4.0–5.7)	5.4 (4.5–6.6)	2.9 (2.2–3.8)	3.9 (2.9–5.3)
Vaginal laceration
None or 1st grade	Reference		Reference
2nd grade or higher	0.8 (0.6–1.1)		1.4 (0.9–2.4)
Birthweight (grams)	p < 0.001	p < 0.001	p < 0.001	p = 0.001
< 2,500	0.8 (0.7–1.1)	0.2 (0.4–0.9)	1.8 (1.3–2.6)	0.7 (0.4–1.1)
2,500–3,999	Reference	Reference	Reference	Reference
≥ 4,000	2.1 (1.5–3.1)	1.9 (1.3–2.9)	2.8 (1.6–5.0)	2.8 (1.5–5.0)

1 Blood loss 500–999 ml.

2 Blood loss ≥ 1,000 ml, or blood loss < 1,000 ml with hemodynamic instability or three or more units blood transfusion.

3 Adjusted: multivariate analysis of risk factors with p < 0.10 in univariate analysis and a priori risk factors (multiple gestations, parity).

4 Ethnicity other: mixed, Chinese, Brazilian, Caucasian, or unknown.

5 Hemoglobin ≤ 100 g/l or 6.1 mmol/l.

The Pareto chart shows that uterine atony (56.7%, n = 102/180[missing 40]) and retained placenta (19.4%, n = 35/180[missing 40]) caused almost 80% of severe PPH (Fig 2). Severe PPH occurred among women with preeclampsia in 23.2% (n = 45/194 [missing 26]) and eclampsia in 2.6% (n = 5/194) of cases. Of the women with severe PPH, 17.1% (n = 33/193 [missing 27]) were admitted to the ICU. Among women with a CS and severe PPH (n = 89), the CS was considered elective for 53.9% (n = 48), emergency for 32.6% (n = 29), and unclassified for 13% (n = 12). Women with severe PPH had a stillbirth in 9.1% of cases (n = 20/220) in contrast to 1.6% (n = 128/7,939) stillbirth prevalence in women without PPH. Women with severe PPH and stillbirth were often diagnosed with placental abruption (85%, n = 17/20) [concomitant preeclampsia existed in 70.6% (n = 12/17) of women with placental abruption].

Fig 2

Pareto chart of the specific underlying causes of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in Suriname in 2017.

The management of PPH was evaluated using the criteria of the national guideline (Fig 3). AMTSL by administering oxytocin immediately after delivery was applied in 61.3% (n = 95/155 [missing 65]) of women with severe PPH. Two of the three cases of severe PPH received oxytocin treatment (68.8%, n = 106/154 [missing 66]). Of the remaining 48 women with severe PPH, 31 received no specific treatment and 17 received combined treatment with misoprostol (n = 12), methylergometrin (n = 1), and vaginal tamponade (n = 7). Tranexamic acid was administered to 4.9% (n = 5/103 [missing 117]) of women with severe PPH. While five women with blood loss below 1 liter received 6 to 10 units of blood products, eight women with blood loss ≥1,500 ml (17.4%, n = 46) received no blood products. These eight women had hemoglobin levels of at least 100 g/l and were hemodynamically stable. Blood loss was weakly to moderately correlated with the number of blood units transfused (Pearson’s coefficient 0.47, p<0.01) but not with ICU admission (Pearson’s coefficient 0.05, p = 0.46).

Fig 3

Criteria-based audit of the management of severe postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in Suriname in 2017 conform to the national PPH guidelines.

Discussion

Based on national registry data in 2017, the prevalence rates of PPH and severe PPH in Suriname were 9.2% and 2.5%, respectively, with substantial variation across the different hospitals. Risk indicators associated with severe PPH were (1) being of African descent, (2) having a multiple pregnancy, (3) delivery in Hospital D, (4) CS, (5) stillbirth, (6) preterm birth, and (7) macrosomia. Severe PPH was mainly due to uterine atony and retained placental tissue. The criteria-based audit identified inadequate administration of oxytocin for PPH prevention (AMTSL) and therapy and infrequent use of tranexamic acid for treatment. While CS was a major risk factor, fewer women who delivered by CS received prophylactic oxytocin than women delivering vaginally did.

Worldwide and in Latin America and the Caribbean (including Suriname), PPH was the most frequent direct underlying cause of maternal deaths in 2010 [1, 17]. To reduce preventable maternal mortality from PPH in the Americas The Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) and its Latin American Center for Perinatology, Women and Reproductive Health launched the “Zero Maternal Mortality from Hemorrhage” initiative in 2015 [24]. Following the designation of Suriname as one of 10 priority countries for reducing maternal mortality, PAHO implemented this project in Suriname in 2018 [25]. In Suriname, efforts to reduce preventable maternal deaths from PPH resulted in national PPH guideline development and obstetric emergency training in 2016 and 2019 [18, 26].

The prevalence of (severe) PPH in Suriname in this study was consistent with global and regional prevalence [10, 11]. Interhospital prevalence varied significantly despite the close geographic vicinity of four hospitals in the capital city. One explanation for this variation could be the differences in maternal, perinatal, and delivery characteristics among the hospitals as reported in this study. In Hospital D, for example, PPH prevalence was the highest, with the second-highest CS rate and higher prevalence of preterm delivery and multiparity. Another explanation for the varied interhospital PPH prevalence was the inconsistent and subjective way of obtaining information on blood loss postpartum as described previously in the methods of this study [18]. Subjective determination of the quantity of blood loss was inaccurate since blood loss was often underestimated at large volumes and overestimated at lower volumes [16, 27]. The inaccurate estimation could also explain the weak or moderate correlation between blood loss volume and PPH severity in this study. Finally, interhospital differences in PPH could result from the unequal availability of or adherence to local and national protocols and consequently, different PPH management [18]. For example, AMTSL for PPH prevention was applied less frequently in Hospital D (studied only for severe PPH). We, therefore, recommend consistent and accurate blood loss quantification conform to the PPH national guideline. During the development of this guideline health care providers reached consensus on the uniform measurement of blood loss by using a measuring cup (in mL) or weighing the pads (grams = mL). The multidisciplinary team of health care providers agreed that overestimation of blood loss could easily be prevented by changing the pads or bedpan immediately after delivery of the child [18].

The risk indicators found in this study (ethnicity, premature delivery, stillbirth, multiple gestations, CS, and macrosomia) were congruent with those reported elsewhere [28-30]. African descendants have higher risks of developing PPH compared to women of other ethnicities [31-33]. Additionally, women of African origin are more commonly anemic antepartum [34], putting them at higher risk of adverse clinical outcome when PPH develops [16]. Our study shows that women with higher antepartum hemoglobin levels stayed hemodynamically stable despite severe blood loss. This highlights the importance of prevention and treatment of antenatal anemia by routine iron and folate supplementation, especially in women of African descent [35]. Interventions aimed at preventing antenatal anemia include health and nutrition education, control of parasitic infection and improved sanitation [35]. We advise authorities to promote nationwide health education programs and campaigns to tackle antepartum anemia.

We found a strong association between severe PPH and stillbirths, which is most likely attributable to a high frequency of placental abruption among these women. A recent stillbirth study in Suriname (2016–2017) reported that placental abruption contributed to 23% of stillbirths [36]. This indicates that placental abruption and maternal conditions such as preeclampsia could be confounders in the association of stillbirth with PPH. As such, improved management of preeclampsia should reduce the risk of PPH from placental abruption.

Most healthcare workers were familiar with grand multiparity as a risk indicator and anticipated accordingly, which may explain the non-significant result found in our study. At least one risk indicator was present in most deliveries complicated by PPH but also in two-thirds of uncomplicated pregnancies without PPH. This weak discriminative ability of risk indicators to identify women who could develop PPH was also reported elsewhere [12, 14, 15]. Therefore, although risk indicator analysis should be considered to anticipate PPH occurrence, PPH can occur unforeseen, and other approaches are also needed for appropriate management.

Extrapolating the Pareto principle to our study (the “80–20 rule”), a focus on prevention of uterine atony and retained placental tissue could significantly reduce severe PPH. In AMTSL, the best preventive measure for PPH was the administration of uterotonics (oxytocin) immediately after every birth [8, 37]. The criteria-based audit showed inadequate use of prophylactic oxytocin in severe PPH. This indicates that AMTSL was not yet routine practice in Suriname in 2017 despite advice from the World Health Organization (WHO) and national guidelines [8, 18]. Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic agent widely used to prevent and treat hemorrhages [38]. While sporadically used to treat severe PPH in Suriname in 2017, it is now routine practice in the first response to PPH [38]. In 2017, the WHO updated the PPH guidelines by adding the use of tranexamic acid in early PPH as advised by the World Maternal Antifibrinolytic (WOMAN) trial, which was a large multi-country randomized control trial [39, 40]. We recommend the application of AMTSL in every delivery and integration of tranexamic acid as a component of the primary treatment of PPH consistent with recent international guidelines [40, 41].

Strengths and limitations

The strengths of this study included its national coverage. Information was obtained on the prevalence of PPH in Suriname for the first time by incorporating routinely available information from the parturition book. Application of the criteria-based audit based on national guidelines allowed for in-depth analysis of specific gaps in care to guide the prioritization of actions to reduce PPH.

This study had several limitations. First, parturition books only include facility-based deliveries or postpartum referrals, and the inclusion of primary care and home births could have resulted in lower PPH prevalence rates since the 14% primary care and home births were excluded from the analysis. The second limitation is that only postpartum hemorrhage was evaluated, while obstetric hemorrhage leading to mortality and severe morbidity could also result from antepartum, post-abortion, and late miscarriages. The third limitation was the higher percentage of missing data for women who delivered by CS or preterm, which are two significant risk indicators for PPH. Also, the non-significant result of the regression analysis for the risk indicators antenatal anemia, the onset of labor and perineal/vaginal laceration was probably caused by the high percentage of missing information. The prevalence of these indicators might therefore not be representative for the whole country. The fourth limitation was that several known risk factors (such as socioeconomic status, body mass index, medical history, complications in the current pregnancy, CS indication, and labor duration) could not be included in the regression analysis since these data were not available. This may explain certain observations, such as why Hospital E with the highest CS prevalence had the lowest prevalence of PPH. Finally, missing information on the causes and management of PPH impacted the criteria-based audit analysis, such as undocumented information on PPH prevention (AMTSL) among births without PPH.

Conclusions and recommendations

Although PPH prevalence and risk indicators for Suriname are consistent with global and regional figures, wide interhospital variations exist. Since uterine atony and retained placenta are associated with almost 80% of severe PPH, intervention efforts should focus on adequate prevention, anticipation, early recognition, and prompt treatment. PPH in Suriname can be reduced by 1) prevention of PPH by applying AMTSL in every delivery and anticipating risk factors, 2) early recognition of PPH by precisely and consistently measuring blood loss, and 3) adequate therapy conforming to national guidelines. Accurate, relevant, and comprehensive data collection is essential to identify specific risk indicators and evaluate guideline implementation in the future. To gain precise insight into the gaps in PPH management, we suggest that countries focus on disaggregated data analysis and criteria-based audits.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

16 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-24164

Postpartum hemorrhage in Suriname: A national descriptive study of hospital births and an audit of case management

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kodan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by October 26th, 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sara Ornaghi, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"We also thank the UMC Utrecht Global Health Support Program for supporting LK in the research on maternal mortality in Suriname."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The author(s) received no specific funding for this work"

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors sought to perform a nationwide retrospective descriptive study of all hospital deliveries in Suriname in 2017, aiming to study the prevalence, risk indicators, causes, and management of PPH to identify opportunities for PPH reduction.

This original article is well written and clear in explaining the points of strength and limits of PPH management in Suriname, mainly due to heterogeneity in management in different hospitals.

I appreciated that in the Discussion the authors described and try to find an explanation to the major issues (blood loss only visually estimated or using a jug, anemia in 36.5% of severe PPH, only 4% use of tranexamic acid).

I would suggest to expand on how increasing the accuracy in estimating blood loss (please make suggestions on which instruments and how to introduce them in the clinical scenario).

I suggest also to expand on how to prevent anemia in pregnancy (for example you should propose a campaign using posters, etc)

Reviewer #2: This is a very interesting manuscript about PPH in Suriname using national data. I only have some few comments.

Lines 70-85: The information in here must be in the introduction. Not in methods.

Line 90: please explain how jugs are used to measured blood loss after a visual estimative postpartum bleeding.

Line 119: You don’t need to explain again what is CI: confidence interval

Line 152: You have identified the hospitals using letters. It is ok, however I suggest you could include some more information, likewise the region where these hospitals are.

Table 1 – I suggest including the p-value comparing the variables.

Line 208-209 – this is result. Not discussion.

I also suggest you include in the discussion:

- antenatal anemia – do you think the prevalence is hyper estimated due to the high number of missings?

- Please discuss about the high number of missings in onset of labor and lacerations and how they could interfere results.

- Why fewer percentage of oxytocin prophylaxis when performed c-section.

- Two of the three cases of severe PPH received oxytocin 192 treatment (68.8%, n= 106/154 – one third of pph cases receive what kind of treatment?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Annalisa Inversetti

Reviewer #2: Yes: Anderson Borovac-Pinheiro

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

29 Oct 2020

October 25th, 2020

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you for reviewing the manuscript " Postpartum hemorrhage in Suriname: A national descriptive study of hospital births and an audit of case management" (PONE-D-20-24164) and considering it potentially acceptable for publication. We appreciated the feedback, as suggestions helped to improve our manuscript. Kindly see below our point-by-point response to comments (in orange) and attached the revised version of our manuscript with track changes.

We hope on a positive response to the revisions we made and are looking forward to publication of our manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of all co-authors,

Lachmi Kodan

Reviewer #1:

The authors sought to perform a nationwide retrospective descriptive study of all hospital deliveries in Suriname in 2017, aiming to study the prevalence, risk indicators, causes, and management of PPH to identify opportunities for PPH reduction.

This original article is well written and clear in explaining the points of strength and limits of PPH management in Suriname, mainly due to heterogeneity in management in different hospitals.

I appreciated that in the Discussion the authors described and try to find an explanation to the major issues (blood loss only visually estimated or using a jug, anemia in 36.5% of severe PPH, only 4% use of tranexamic acid).

Suggestions:

Reply: Thank you for your positive review of our manuscript, which we greatly appreciate.

I would suggest to expand on how increasing the accuracy in estimating blood loss (please make suggestions on which instruments and how to introduce them in the clinical scenario).

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion, which we considered in the Discussion where we added in line 249-253 “During the development of this guideline health care providers reached consensus on uniform measurement of blood loss by using a measuring cup (in mL) or weighing the pads (grams=mL). The multidisciplinary team of health care providers agreed that overestimation of blood loss could easily be prevented by changing the pads or bedpan immediately after delivery of the child [21].“

I suggest also to expand on how to prevent anemia in pregnancy (for example you should propose a campaign using posters, etc)

Reply: In the discussion in line 263-266 we added “Interventions aimed at preventing antenatal anemia include health and nutrition education, control of parasitic infection and improved sanitation [36]. We advise authorities to promote nationwide health education programs and campaigns to tackle antepartum anemia.”

Reviewer #2:

This is a very interesting manuscript about PPH in Suriname using national data. I only have some few comments.

Reply: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for the comments

Lines 70-85: The information in here must be in the introduction. Not in methods.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. We moved part of this section lines 81 - 85 to the introduction (lines 61 - 67). The part describing the study setting in Suriname (lines 70-81) is left in the methods according to the STROBE guidelines (now lines 77-88).

Line 90: please explain how jugs are used to measured blood loss after a visual estimative postpartum bleeding.

Reply: To clarify how blood loss was measured we added in lines 96-97 the sentence “In case of estimated high blood loss, blood in the bedpan was measured with a measuring jug (mL) or the pads were weighted (grams=mL).”

Line 119: You don’t need to explain again what is CI: confidence interval

Reply: The explanation of the term “confidence interval” was removed from this sentence.

Line 152: You have identified the hospitals using letters. It is ok, however I suggest you could include some more information, likewise the region where these hospitals are.

Reply: In lines 85-86 is mentioned “Four out of five major hospitals are in the capital Paramaribo; one is located at the western border of Suriname (Nickerie).” To ensure anonymity we decided not to include names of hospitals. Suriname has a relatively small population with only five hospitals where 86% of the deliveries take place. By including the region, it can easily be deducted which hospital is involved.

Table 1 – I suggest including the p-value comparing the variables.

Reply: We added the p-values in table 1 (see below). However, table 1 was not intended to describe associations between the variables and PPH. We used logistic regression analysis to compare variables and investigate the independent association of risk indicators with moderate and severe PPH. In table 2 we describe the results of the univariate and bivariate logistic regression analysis. The univariate regression analysis gives more insight in the specific category where an association exist between the variables and (moderate/severe) PPH, which is more accurate in comparing the variables than the chi-square test p-values. Therefore, we think that it was not necessary to also include p-values in table 1. We included the table with the p-values here below in case the editor still wants to add the p-values.

Table 1. Maternal, perinatal, and delivery characteristics of births in Suriname in 2017 with and without postpartum hemorrhage and undocumented blood loss. (See document "PPH response to reviewers")

Line 208-209 – this is result. Not discussion.

Reply: We removed the sentence from the discussion. This result is mentioned in lines 180-181 in the results section.

I also suggest you include in the discussion:

- antenatal anemia – do you think the prevalence is hyper estimated due to the high number of missings?

Reply: Thank you for your comment and yes, this is possible since only data of two of the five hospitals was available, as stated in line 150 in the result section. In the limitations section in line 311-315 the possible influence of these missings are mentioned.

- Please discuss about the high number of missings in onset of labor and lacerations and how they could interfere results.

Reply: In the limitations section in the lines 311-315 we added the sentence “Also, the non-significant result of the regression analysis for the risk indicators antenatal anemia, onset of labor and perineal/vaginal laceration was probably caused by the high prevalence of missing information. The prevalence of these indicators might therefore not be representative for the whole country.”

- Why fewer percentage of oxytocin prophylaxis when performed c-section.

Reply: We reconsidered this and decided not to mention this in the discussion and in the results section since the number of missings is relatively high (n=42/89) for CS.

Therefore, in the discussion we deleted the lines 286-288:” especially among women delivering by CS. In contrast, according to previous interviews with healthcare providers in Suriname AMTSL was applied in all births by CS [21]” and in the results we deleted the lines 197-199 “When a CS was performed, fewer women (55.3%, n= 26/47 [missing 42]) received prophylactic oxytocin compared to vaginal births (65.1%, n= 69/106 [missing 25]).”

-Two of the three cases of severe PPH received oxytocin 192 treatment (68.8%, n= 106/154 – one third of pph cases receive what kind of treatment?

Reply: In the current study, two of the three cases of severe PPH received oxytocin treatment (68.8%, n=106/154 [missing 66]). We added in the results in lines 200-202: “Of the remaining 48 women experiencing severe PPH, 31 received no specific treatment and 17 received combined treatment with misoprostol (n=12), methylergometrin (n=1), and vaginal tamponade (n=7).”

Submitted filename: PPH Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

3 Dec 2020

Postpartum hemorrhage in Suriname: A national descriptive study of hospital births and an audit of case management

PONE-D-20-24164R1

Dear Dr. Kodan,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sara Ornaghi, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Congratulations for the manuscript. All the suggestions were included or justified. It is now suitable for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Annalisa Inversetti

Reviewer #2: No

9 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-24164R1

Postpartum hemorrhage in Suriname: A national descriptive study of hospital births and an audit of case management

Dear Dr. Kodan:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sara Ornaghi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE