Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2021; 38(10): 1031-1035
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1701507
Original Article

Automated Quantification of Blood Loss versus Visual Estimation in 274 Vaginal Deliveries

Andrew F. Rubenstein
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, New Jersey
,
Stacy Zamudio
2   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, New Jersey
,
Claudia Douglas
3   Institute for Evidence Based Practice and Nursing Research, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, New Jersey
,
Sharon Sledge
4   Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery, Department of Patient Safety and Quality, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, New Jersey
,
Robert L. Thurer
5   Medical Department, Gauss Surgical, Inc., Menlo Park, California
› Author Affiliations Funding Gauss Surgical, Inc. provided statistical support services for this study and financial support to Hackensack Meridian Health for on-site research activities. Gauss personnel also participated in study design, data analysis, and manuscript preparation.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of the study is to compare quantified blood loss measurement (QBL) using an automated system (Triton QBL, Menlo Park, CA) with visual blood loss estimation (EBL) during vaginal delivery.

Study Design During 274 vaginal deliveries, both QBL and EBL were determined. The automated system batch weighs blood containing sponges, towels, pads, and other supplies and automatically subtracts their dry weights and also the measured amount of amniotic fluid. Each method was performed independently, and clinicians were blinded to the device's results.

Results Median QBL (339 mL [217–515]) was significantly greater than median EBL (300 mL [200–350]; p < 0.0001). The Pearson's correlation between EBL and QBL was poor (r = 0.520) and the Bland–Altman's limits of agreement were wide (>900 mL). QBL measured blood loss >500 mL occurred in 73 (26.6%) patients compared with 14 (5.1%) patients using visual estimation (p < 0.0001). QBL ≥  1,000 mL was recorded in 11 patients (4.0%), whereas only one patient had an EBL blood loss of 1,000 mL and none had EBL >1,000 mL (p = 0.002).

Conclusion Automated QBL recognizes more patients with excessive blood loss than visual estimation. To realize the value of QBL, clinicians must accept the inadequacy of visual estimation and implement protocols based on QBL values. Further studies of clinical outcomes related to QBL are needed.

Key Points

  • QBL detects hemorrhage more frequently than visual estimation.

  • Median QBL is significantly greater than median EBL.

  • There is poor agreement between QBL and EBL.

Keywords

vaginal delivery - blood loss - blood transfusion - postpartum hemorrhage - quality improvement


Publication History

Received: 29 July 2019

Accepted: 22 December 2019

Article published online:
12 February 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Berg CJ, Harper MA, Atkinson SM. et al. Preventability of pregnancy-related deaths: results of a state-wide review. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106 (06) 1228-1234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lyndon A, Lagrew D, Shields L, Main E, Cape V. Improving Health Care Response to Obstetric Hemorrhage. (California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative Toolkit to Transform Maternity Care) Developed under contract #11–10006 with the California Department of Public Health; Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Division; Published by the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, 3/17/15. Accessed January 16, 2020 at: https://pqcnc-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/aim/aimexpert/PQCNCOBHCMQCCObstetricHemmorhageToolKit20150324%20.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Shields LE, Wiesner S, Fulton J, Pelletreau B. Comprehensive maternal hemorrhage protocols reduce the use of blood products and improve patient safety. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (03) 272-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Main EK, Goffman D, Scavone BM. et al; National Parternship for Maternal Safety; Council for Patient Safety in Women's Health Care. National partnership for maternal safety: consensus bundle on obstetric hemorrhage. Anesth Analg 2015; 121 (01) 142-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Main EK, Cape V, Abreo A. et al. Reduction of severe maternal morbidity from hemorrhage using a state perinatal quality collaborative. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 216 (03) 298.e1-298.e11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Brasel KJ, Guse C, Gentilello LM, Nirula R. Heart rate: is it truly a vital sign?. J Trauma 2007; 62 (04) 812-817
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Convertino VA, Moulton SL, Grudic GZ. et al. Use of advanced machine-learning techniques for noninvasive monitoring of hemorrhage. J Trauma 2011; 71 (1, Suppl): S25-S32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Orlinsky M, Shoemaker W, Reis ED, Kerstein MD. Current controversies in shock and resuscitation. Surg Clin North Am 2001; 81 (06) 1217-1262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bose P, Regan F, Paterson-Brown S. Improving the accuracy of estimated blood loss at obstetric haemorrhage using clinical reconstructions. BJOG 2006; 113 (08) 919-924
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Schorn MN. Measurement of blood loss: review of the literature. J Midwifery Womens Health 2010; 55 (01) 20-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Toledo P, Eosakul ST, Goetz K, Wong CA, Grobman WA. Decay in blood loss estimation skills after web-based didactic training. Simul Healthc 2012; 7 (01) 18-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Quantification of blood loss: AWHONN practice brief number 1. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2015; 44 (01) 158-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hamm RF, Wang E, Romanos A, O'Rourke K, Srinivas SK. Implementation of quantification of blood loss does not improve prediction of hemoglobin drop in deliveries with average blood loss. Am J Perinatol 2018; 35 (02) 134-139
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lilley G, Burkett-St-Laurent D, Precious E. et al. Measurement of blood loss during postpartum haemorrhage. Int J Obstet Anesth 2015; 24 (01) 8-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1 (8476): 307-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Dilla AJ, Waters JH, Yazer MH. Clinical validation of risk stratification criteria for peripartum hemorrhage. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (01) 120-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Katz D, Wang R, O'Neil L. et al. The association between the introduction of quantitative assessment of postpartum blood loss and institutional changes in clinical practice: an observational study. Int J Obstet Anesth 2019; S0959-289X (19)30070-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Doctorvaladan SV, Jelks AT, Hsieh EW, Thurer RL, Zakowski MI, Lagrew DC. Accuracy of blood loss measurement during cesarean delivery. AJP Rep 2017; 7 (02) e93-e100
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar