A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POSTPARTUM BLOOD LOSS BY VISUAL ESTIMATION METHOD AND BY GRAVIMETRIC METHOD

Namrata Hazarika; Amrit  Pal Kaur; Anita Madan

doi:10.22159/ajpcr.2022.v15i7.44589

Authors

Namrata Hazarika Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Government Medical College, Amritsar. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5071-7227
Amrit Pal Kaur Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Government Medical College, Amritsar.
Anita Madan Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Government Medical College, Amritsar.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2022.v15i7.44589

Keywords:

Postpartum hemorrhage, Visual estimation of blood loss, Gravimetric method, BNMCCC

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the study was to estimate postpartum blood loss visually and by gravimetric method and compare the both.

Methods: This study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GMC Amritsar on 100 pregnant women satisfying the inclusion criteria over a period of 1.5 years. Patient’s consent was taken and visual estimation was done by the attending obstetrician and obstetric nurse. Total blood loss was calculated using gravimetric method and was compared to value given by visual estimation. Furthermore, comparison was done between the visual estimation values of the attending obstetrician and the obstetric nurse.

Results: Obstetrician observed 21.47% less blood loss than the actual (by gravimetric method) blood loss. Obstetric nurse observed 20.01% less blood loss than the obstetrician and 37.19% less than the actual loss.

Conclusion: Visual estimation underestimates the actual blood loss and, hence, an objective gravimetric method should be used for early and effective management of PPH.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Daftary SN, Chakravarti S, Pai MV, Kushtagi P. Postpartum haemorrhage. In: Holland and Brews Manual of Obstetrics. 4th ed. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2016. p. 347-54.

World Health Organization. Attending to 136 Million Births, Every Year: Make Every Mother and Child Count: The Wordl Record. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005. p. 62-3.

Lalonde A, Daviss BA, Acosta A, Herschderfer K. Postpartum hemorrhage today: ICM/FIGO initiative 2004-2006. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006;94:243-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.04.016, PMID 16842791.

Roberts CL, Ford JB, Algert CS, Bell JC, Simpson JM, Morris JM. Trends in adverse maternal outcomes during childbirth: A population-based study of severe maternal morbidity. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2009;9:7. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-7, PMID 19243578.

Callaghan WM, Kuklina EV, Berg CJ. Trends in postpartum hemorrhage: United States, 1994-2006. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;202:353. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.01.011, PMID 20350642.

Kadri HM, Anazi BK, Tamim HM. Visual estimation versus gravimetric measurement of postpartum blood loss: A prospective cohort study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011;283:1207-13. doi: 10.1007/s00404-010- 1522-1, PMID 20508942.

Lertbunnaphong T, Lapthanapat N, Leetheeragul J, Hakularb P, Ownon A. Postpartum blood loss: Visual estimation versus objective quantification with a novel birthing drape. Singapore Med J 2016;57:325-8. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2016107, PMID 27353510.

Liu Y, Zhu W, Shen Y, Qiu J, Rao L, Li H. Assessing the accuracy of visual blood loss estimation in postpartum hemorrhage in Shanghai hospitals: A web‐based survey for nurses and midwives. J Clin Nurs 2021;30:3556-62. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15860, PMID 34021655