A cluster randomized controlled trial of the non-pneumatic anti-shock garment for obstetric haemorrhage: sub-analysis of the Zimbabwean Arm.

Objectives: To determine whether earlier application of the Non-pneumatic Anti-Shock Garment (NASG) at clinic level compared to the referral hospital level reduces maternal morbidity and mortality and recovery time from shock due to severe Obstetric Haemorrhage (OH) and to determine the safety of the NASG when applied at clinic level. Design: A cluster Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) Setting: Harare and Parirenyatwa Referral Hospitals (RH) in Harare and the twelve Harare City Council clinics that offer maternity care. Subjects: Women who had suffered severe OH at clinic level and were being transferred to a Referral Hospital (RH). Iterventions: The clinics were randomized into two groups. In the early NASG group eligible women were given the standard management for OH and had the NASG applied at the clinic level before transport to RH. In the control group, eligible women were given the standard management for OH at the clinic level, transferred to the RH, and received the NASG at the RH. All women received equivalent OH/hypovolemic shock management at the RH. Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome measures were maternal mortality and morbidity, blood loss, recovery from shock and the occurrence of side effects whilst in the NASG. Results: There were few maternal deaths and morbidities, and no statistically significant differences between the two groups were noted. Women in the early NASG group spent a statistically significant shorter time in the NASG at referral hospital level (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52 - 0.79, p < 0.001) and had a non-significant 40% faster recovery from shock (HR 1.39; 95% CI 0.98-1.97, p=0.07). There were no differences in reported side effects. Conclusion: Earlier NASG application at the clinic level was associated with faster recovery from shock in women who had suffered severe OH and appears safe to use.

Shock index: an effective predictor of outcome in postpartum haemorrhage?

OBJECTIVES: To compare the predictive value of the shock index (SI) with conventional vital signs in postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), and to establish 'alert' thresholds for use in low-resource settings. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: UK tertiary centre. POPULATION: Women with PPH ≥ 1500 ml (n = 233). METHODS: Systolic blood pressure (BP), diastolic BP, mean arterial pressure, pulse pressure, heart rate (HR) and SI (HR/systolic BP) were measured within the first hour following PPH. Values measured at the time of highest SI were selected for analysis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for each parameter, used to predict admission to an intensive care unit and other adverse outcomes, was calculated. Sensitivity, specificity and negative/positive predictive values determined thresholds of the best predictor. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intensive care unit (ICU) admission, blood transfusion ≥ 4 iu, haemoglobin level <7 g/dl, and invasive surgical procedures. RESULTS: Shock index has the highest AUROC to predict ICU admissions (0.75 for SI [95% CI 0.63-0.87] compared with 0.64 [95% CI 0.44-0.83] for systolic BP). SI compared favourably for other outcomes: SI ≥ 0.9 had 100% sensitivity (95% CI 73.5-100) and 43.4% specificity (95% CI 36.8-50.3), and SI ≥ 1.7 had 25.0% sensitivity (95% CI 5.5-57.2) and 97.7% specificity (CI 94.8-99.3), for predicting ICU admission. CONCLUSIONS: Shock index compared favourably with conventional vital signs in predicting ICU admission and other outcomes in PPH, even after adjusting for confounding; SI <0.9 provides reassurance, whereas SI ≥ 1.7 indicates a need for urgent attention. In low-resource settings this simple parameter could improve outcomes. It was not possible to adjust for resuscitative measures administered following vital sign measurement that may have influenced the outcome.