ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess temporal trends in incidence and underlying causes of maternal deaths from obstetric hemorrhage in France and to describe clinical care before and after implementation of the first national guidelines published in 2004 and updated in 2014. METHODS: Data from all hemorrhage-related maternal deaths between 2001 and 2015 were extracted from the French Confidential Enquiry into Maternal Deaths. We compared the maternal mortality ratio (MMR), cause of obstetric hemorrhage, and death preventability by triennium. Critical care, transfusion, and obstetric management among women who died were described for 2001 to 2003 and 2013 to 2015. RESULTS: The MMR from obstetric hemorrhage significantly decreased over time from 2.3 of 100,000 livebirths (54 of 2,391,551) in 2001 to 2003 to 0.8 of 100,000 livebirths (19 of 2,412,720) in 2013 to 2015. In 2001 to 2003, uterine atony accounted for 50% (27 of 54) of maternal deaths vs 21% (4 of 19) in 2013 to 2015. As compared to 2001 to 2003, an increased proportion of women had hemodynamic continuous monitoring in 2013 to 2015 (30%, 9 of 30, vs 47%, 8 of 18) and received vasopressor infusion therapy (57%, 17 of 30, vs 72%, 13 of 18), and a smaller proportion was extubated during active hemorrhage (17%, 5 of 30, vs 0 of 18). Transfusion therapy was initiated more frequently and earlier in 2013 to 2015 (71 vs 58 minutes). In 2013 to 2015, 88% of maternal deaths due to hemorrhage remained preventable. The main identified improvable care factors were related to delays in diagnosis and surgical management, particularly after cesarean delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal mortality by obstetric hemorrhage decreased dramatically in France between 2001 and 2015, particularly mortality due to uterine atony. Among women who died, we detected fewer instances of substandard transfusion management or critical care. Nevertheless, opportunities for improvement were observed in most of the recent cases.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare guidelines from eight high-income countries on prevention and management of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), with a particular focus on severe PPH. DESIGN: Comparative study. SETTING: High-resource countries. POPULATION: Women with PPH. METHODS: Systematic comparison of guidance on PPH from eight high-income countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Definition of PPH, prophylactic management, measurement of blood loss, initial PPH-management, second-line uterotonics, non-pharmacological management, resuscitation/transfusion management, organisation of care, quality/methodological rigour. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights areas where strong evidence is lacking. There is need for a universal definition of (severe) PPH. Consensus is required on how and when to quantify blood loss to identify PPH promptly. Future research may focus on timing and sequence of second-line uterotonics and non-pharmacological interventions and how these impact maternal outcome. Until more data are available, different transfusion strategies will be applied. The use of clear transfusion-protocols are nonetheless recommended to reduce delays in initiation. There is a need for a collaborative effort to develop standardised, evidence-based PPH guidelines. RESULTS: Definitions of (severe) PPH varied as to the applied cut-off of blood loss and incorporation of clinical parameters. Dose and mode of administration of prophylactic uterotonics and methods of blood loss measurement were heterogeneous. Recommendations on second-line uterotonics differed as to type and dose. Obstetric management diverged particularly regarding procedures for uterine atony. Recommendations on transfusion approaches varied with different thresholds for blood transfusion and supplementation of haemostatic agents. Quality of guidelines varied considerably.
