American journal of perinatology · 2017
Clinical Experience with the Implementation of Accurate Measurement of Blood Loss during Cesarean Delivery: Influences on Hemorrhage Recognition and Allogeneic Transfusion.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rubenstein Andrew F, Zamudio Stacy, Al-Khan Abdulla, Douglas Claudia, Sledge Sharon, Tully Griffeth, Thurer Robert L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This article compares hemorrhage recognition and transfusion using accurate, contemporaneous blood loss measurement versus visual estimation during cesarean deliveries.
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study using visually estimated blood loss (traditional, n = 2,025) versus estimates using a mobile application that photographs sponges and canisters and calculates their hemoglobin content (device, n = 756).
RESULTS: Blood loss > 1,000 mL was recognized in 1.9% of traditional visual estimation patients, while measured blood loss of > 1,000 mL occurred in 8.2% of device patients (p < 0.0001). In both groups, this was accompanied by a greater decrease in transfusion-adjusted hemoglobin levels than occurred in patients without hemorrhage (p < 0.0001). Despite similar transfusion rates (1.6% in both groups), fewer red cell units were given to transfused patients in the device group (1.83 ± 0.58 versus 2.56 ± 1.68 units; p = 0.038). None of the patients in the device group received plasma or cryoprecipitate. Seven patients in the traditional group received these products (p = 0.088). Device use was associated with shorter hospital stays (4.0 ± 2.3 versus 4.4 ± 2.9 days; p = 0.0006).
CONCLUSION: The device identified hemorrhages more frequently than visual estimation. Device-detected hemorrhages appeared clinically relevant. Blood product transfusion was reduced possibly due to earlier recognition and treatment, although further studies are needed to verify the conclusion.
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study using visually estimated blood loss (traditional, n = 2,025) versus estimates using a mobile application that photographs sponges and canisters and calculates their hemoglobin content (device, n = 756).
RESULTS: Blood loss > 1,000 mL was recognized in 1.9% of traditional visual estimation patients, while measured blood loss of > 1,000 mL occurred in 8.2% of device patients (p < 0.0001). In both groups, this was accompanied by a greater decrease in transfusion-adjusted hemoglobin levels than occurred in patients without hemorrhage (p < 0.0001). Despite similar transfusion rates (1.6% in both groups), fewer red cell units were given to transfused patients in the device group (1.83 ± 0.58 versus 2.56 ± 1.68 units; p = 0.038). None of the patients in the device group received plasma or cryoprecipitate. Seven patients in the traditional group received these products (p = 0.088). Device use was associated with shorter hospital stays (4.0 ± 2.3 versus 4.4 ± 2.9 days; p = 0.0006).
CONCLUSION: The device identified hemorrhages more frequently than visual estimation. Device-detected hemorrhages appeared clinically relevant. Blood product transfusion was reduced possibly due to earlier recognition and treatment, although further studies are needed to verify the conclusion.