Determining the validity of non-invasive spot-check hemoglobin co-oximetry testing to detect anemia in postpartum women at a tertiary care centre, a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Spot-check hemoglobin co-oximetry analyzers measure hemoglobin transcutaneously and offer the benefit of a hemoglobin measurement without phlebotomy. The objective of this study was to determine the validity of non-invasive spot-check hemoglobin co-oximetry testing for the detection of postpartum anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL). METHODS: Five hundred eighty-four women aged 18 and over were recruited on postpartum day one following a singleton delivery. Two non-invasive spot-check hemoglobin co-oximetry monitors, Masimo Pronto Pulse CO-Oximeter (Pronto) and Masimo Rad-67 Pulse CO-Oximeter (Rad-67), were evaluated and compared to the postpartum phlebotomy hemoglobin value. RESULTS: Of 584 participants, 31% (181) had postpartum anemia by phlebotomy hemoglobin measurement. Bland-Altman plots determined a bias of + 2.4 (± 1.2) g/dL with the Pronto and + 2.2 (± 1.1) g/dL with the Rad-67. Low sensitivity was observed: 15% for the Pronto and 16% for the Rad-67. Adjusting for the fixed bias, the Pronto demonstrated a sensitivity of 68% and specificity of 84%, while the Rad-67 demonstrated a sensitivity of 78% and specificity of 88%. CONCLUSION: A consistent overestimation of hemoglobin by the non-invasive spot-check hemoglobin co-oximetry monitors compared to phlebotomy hemoglobin result was observed. Even after adjusting for the fixed bias, the sensitivity for detecting postpartum anemia was low. Detection of postpartum anemia should not be based on these devices alone.

Changing red blood cell transfusion practice in obstetrics and gynaecology: A before and after study of hospital-wide education.

OBJECTIVES: To assess transfusion practices at a Canadian tertiary care center before and after a hospital-wide blood management educational campaign based on the Choosing Wisely toolkit. BACKGROUND: Red blood cell (RBC) transfusions are an essential intervention in obstetrics and gynaec ology (O&G). However, with limited guidelines outlining the appropriate use of RBC transfusions, clinicians routinely transfuse based on haemoglobin values and habits. METHODS/MATERIALS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients who received a RBC transfusion while admitted under an O&G provider in two 12-month periods-before and after the intervention. The campaign consisted of Grand Rounds, formal and informal teaching, and posters placed within the hospital. We judged appropriateness from a set of criteria guided by the status of ongoing bleeding, pre-transfusion haemoglobin, and the number of units ordered simultaneously. RESULTS: Transfusion appropriateness was poor in pre- and post-intervention periods (46% vs. 51%, p = 0.59). The overall rate of RBC transfusion was reduced from 1.8% to 1.2% (83/4610 vs. 55/4618, p = 0.02) after the intervention. There was a 52% reduction in the total number of RBC units of transfused (229 vs. 111, p < 0.001), a 33% reduction in the number of patients transfused (83 vs. 55, p = 0.016), and fewer multiple-unit transfusions without reassessment (39 vs. 13, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: RBC transfusion appropriateness remained low after a hospital-wide educational campaign. However, there was a marked decrease in overall transfusion use, reflecting the adoption of more restrictive transfusion practices. The low rate of transfusion appropriateness represents an opportunity for further improvement.