Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Incidence of postpartum hemorrhage based on the improved combined method in evaluating blood loss: A retrospective cohort study

  • Fangyuan Zheng,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Department of Obstetrics, Hangzhou Women’s Hospital, Hangzhou, China

    ⨯
  • Haiyan Wen ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

    wenhy1991@163.com

    Affiliation Department of Obstetrics, Hangzhou Women’s Hospital, Hangzhou, China

    ⨯
  • Lan Shi,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis

    Affiliation Department of Fourth Clinical Medical College, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China

    ⨯
  • Caihe Wen,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis

    Affiliation Department of Obstetrics, Hangzhou Women’s Hospital, Hangzhou, China

    ⨯
  • Qiumeng Wang,

    Roles Data curation

    Affiliation Department of Obstetrics, Hangzhou Women’s Hospital, Hangzhou, China

    ⨯
  • Shouzhen Yao

    Roles Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Obstetrics, Hangzhou Women’s Hospital, Hangzhou, China

    ⨯

Abstract

Objective

In view of the current clinical inaccuracies and underestimations of postpartum hemorrhage amount, this study aims to investigate the incidence, etiology, clinical characteristics of postpartum hemorrhage in different modes of delivery based on the combination of volumetric method, gravimetric method and area method in evaluating blood loss.

Design

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in Hangzhou Women’s Hospital from January 2020 to June 2021, including 725 cases of postpartum hemorrhage among 18,977 parturients. Based on different modes of delivery, the participants were divided into three groups: vaginal delivery, forceps delivery, and cesarean section, for comparison.

Methods

Using an improved combined assessment method for blood loss, we retrospectively analyzed a cohort of parturients with postpartum hemorrhage who underwent vaginal delivery, forceps delivery, or cesarean section and were hospitalized in Hangzhou Women’s Hospital from January 2020 to June 2021.

Results

(1) Among the 18,977 parturients, 725 cases of postpartum hemorrhage occurred, with an incidence rate of 3.8%, and severe postpartum hemorrhage accounted for 0.4% of the cases. (2) The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage was significantly higher in the forceps delivery group than in the vaginal delivery group (χ2 = 19.27, P<0.001), while the incidence of severe postpartum hemorrhage was significantly higher in the cesarean section group than in the vaginal delivery group (χ2 = 8.71, P = 0.003). (3) The causes of postpartum hemorrhage were statistically different among the different delivery modes, with varying underlying factors (P<0.001). (4) Patients with postpartum hemorrhage in different delivery modes showed statistically significant differences in age, body mass index (BMI), birth weight, gestational age, gravidity, parity, the decline of postpartum peripheral blood hemoglobin concentration, and estimated blood loss (P<0.05). (5) The proportion of blood transfusion was significantly higher in the cesarean section group than in the vaginal delivery and forceps delivery groups (χ2 = 231.03, P<0.001).

Limitations

This study is a single-center retrospective study, which may have led to selection bias in case selection. Additionally, the implementation of the combined three blood loss assessment methods may not have been strictly followed in all cases. Moreover, due to the mixing of bleeding with amniotic and irrigation fluids, the accuracy of evaluation may have been affected, leading to the possibility of inaccuracy of blood loss.

Conclusions

Forceps delivery and cesarean section increase the risk of postpartum hemorrhage, but forceps delivery does not significantly increase the incidence of severe postpartum hemorrhage. Uterine atony remains the leading cause of postpartum hemorrhage, while birth canal laceration and placental factors are the second most common causes of postpartum hemorrhage in forceps delivery and cesarean section, respectively. In this study, the volumetric method, gravimetric method and area method were combined to quantitatively assess postpartum hemorrhage amount. The combined method has strong clinical practicability and is less affected by subjective factors, although it also has limitations. In the future, we still need to focus on the early prediction and identification of postpartum hemorrhage, and further improve the quantitative assessment of postpartum blood loss.

Citation: Zheng F, Wen H, Shi L, Wen C, Wang Q, Yao S (2023) Incidence of postpartum hemorrhage based on the improved combined method in evaluating blood loss: A retrospective cohort study. PLoS ONE 18(7): e0289271. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289271

Editor: Fadhlun Alwy Al-beity, MUHAS: Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

Received: May 7, 2022; Accepted: July 16, 2023; Published: July 28, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Zheng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is a serious obstetric complication that occurs and develops so rapidly, which is still a leading cause of maternal death in China [1]. It can be accompanied by serious maternal complications, such as hypovolemic shock, disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), acute renal failure, acute respiratory distress, Sheehan syndrome; loss of fertility has also been reported [2, 3]. In the past 10 years, the incidence of PPH in some developed countries was still rising, mainly due to the increased incidence of uterine atony [4]. It is also positively correlated with labor induction, prenatal oxytocin use, and the increasing cesarean section rate [5]. A meta-analysis involved multiple countries in 2012 indicated that the incidence of PPH fluctuated from 7.2% to 25.7% (with an average of approximately 10.8%).The study also pointed out that the incidence of PPH was affected by the regions and the methods of blood loss assessment [6]. At present, clinical underestimation of postpartum blood loss is still common [7–10], and some studies indicated that inaccurate estimates of actual blood loss after birth occurred by healthcare providers are the main reason for the delayed bleeding response [11–13]. The traditional visual method to estimate blood loss during childbirth and postpartum is subjective and not accurate enough [14–16]. Quantitative measurements of blood loss such as spectrophotometry [17, 18], gravimetric measurement [9], objective quantification with a novel birthing drape using the volumetric method [8, 19], hematocrit [20, 21] are more accurate than the visual method. However, no method of quantifying blood loss has been proven to be optimal by the existing data [22]. Therefore, how to improve the accuracy of postpartum blood loss assessment still needs to be further explored.

After the opening of the second-child policy in China, the number of pregnant women with advanced age, scarred uterus re-pregnancy, and pernicious placenta previa increases significantly. The composition of the childbearing population has changed, which also changes the causes of PPH [23]. The maternal mortality rate caused by PPH in China is significantly higher than that in developed countries [24, 25]. At present, there is still a big gap in the ability to prevent and treat PPH. Based on the improved combined assessment method of blood loss, this study retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 725 patients with PPH in our hospital, and aimed to explore the incidence, etiology, clinical characteristics in different delivery modes.

Methods

1. Study design and participants

This retrospective study was conducted in Hangzhou (population more than 10,000,000), the capital of Zhejiang Province, which is among one of the developed areas in southeast coast of China with high medical level. The annual number of births from 2018 to 2020 is above 13,000 in Hangzhou Women’s Hospital. The people served by our hospital are mainly from cities with high education level, and most of them have college degree or above. The study cohort consisted of vaginal delivery, forceps delivery, and cesarean section parturients who were hospitalized in Hangzhou Women’s Hospital between January 2020 and June 2021 and met the inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria required participants to have a gestational week of delivery of ≥28 weeks and to have given birth in the hospital. Participants with severe liver and kidney dysfunction, severe hematological diseases (excluding anemia and simple thrombocytopenia), or incomplete information were excluded. Blood loss, incidence, and causes of postpartum hemorrhage in different delivery groups (vaginal delivery, forceps delivery, and cesarean section groups) were compared using an improved combined assessment method of blood loss, which is a standardized method for estimating blood loss during delivery that includes both visual and quantitative assessments. Fig 1 provides detailed information about the study population.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Flow diagram of the total study population, exclusions and subdivisions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289271.g001

2. Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in accordance with International Code of Ethics for Biomedical Research Involving Human and Helsinki Declaration, and the study protocol was approved by the Ethical Review Committee of Hangzhou Women’s Hospital in China, approval number [2021K10-01]. Because of the retrospective nature of the study, patient consent for inclusion was waived. The identity of the participants are kept anonymous, and the information in this study is kept strictly confidential.

3. Clinical data collection

From January 2020 to June 2021, all the clinical data were collected from electronic medical records system used in our hospital, including the age, gravidity, parity, body mass index (BMI), gestational age at delivery, birth weight, placental abnormalities (including placental adhesion, placenta accreta, placenta previa, retained placenta and placental abruption), pregnancy complications, hemoglobin level concentration within one week before delivery and peripheral blood hemoglobin concentration 24 to 48 hours postpartum, indications for labor induction, forceps and cesarean section, estimate blood loss, causes of PPH blood transfusion (type and amount of blood transfusion) and intervention measures (type and dose of uterotonics, uterine tamponade, vascular ligation, hysterectomy). The general data of patients with postpartum hemorrhage as blood loss, incidence and causes of postpartum hemorrhage in different delivery methods (vaginal delivery group, forceps delivery group, cesarean section group) were compared.

4. Definition of postpartum hemorrhage

PPH is defined as blood loss ≥500 mLs following vaginal birth or ≥1000 mLs following caesarean section within 24 hours. Severe PPH refers to blood loss ≥1000 mLs or hypovolemic shock within 24 hours after delivery [26].

5. Quantitative assessment methods of postpartum blood loss

We adopted a unified blood loss assessment method and conducted regular pre-job training. We made detailed records of the intra-partum and 24-hour postpartum bleeding of each delivery. There are complementary advantages among volumetric method, gravimetric method and area method. The combined method can be divided into the following three steps. Firstly, the volume of the blood collection basin used in vaginal delivery and the suction bottle used in cesarean section can be directly read (the volume of amniotic fluid and irrigating fluid need to be deducted). During vaginal delivery, when the amniotic fluid had basically flowed completely after fetal birth, then the blood collection basin was placed under the maternal buttocks to collect blood loss. The medical covering drape used in cesarean section is waterproof, which can collect amniotic fluid and blood loss effectively. During cesarean section, the assistant used a negative pressure aspirator to collect as much amniotic fluid as possible after the rupture of amniotic membrane and record the amount of amniotic fluid in the suction bottle. Then removed the amount of amniotic fluid when calculating the blood loss in the suction bottle. Secondly, the remaining bleeding on the operating table was calculated by the area method (10cm×10cm is referred as 10 mL). At last, the perineal pad was placed under maternal buttocks until 24 hours after delivery. The perineal pad would be replaced several times, and the final weight was calculated totally (blood volume (mL) = (the weight of the pad used—the weight before use)/1.05). The sum of the blood loss in the above three steps is the total blood loss within 24 hours after delivery.

6. Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 19.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used for the normality test. The data conforming to the normal distribution are represented by the mean ± standard deviation. The data of the skewed distribution are represented by the quartile, and categorical variables in numbers and percentages (%). Independent sample analysis of differences between groups was performed using variance analysis, χ2 test, Fisher’s exact test or nonparametric test (Mann Whitney U test and Kruskal Wallis test). Multiple comparisons were performed using Bonferroni method or Dunnett T3 method. The level of significance was set at a probability value of P < 0.05.

Results

1. Participant characteristics

The total population consisted of 18981 deliveries who were hospitalized in our hospital from January 2020 to June 2021. 18977 cases were enrolled after four were excluded for gestational age less than 28 weeks. PPH occurred in 725 cases (76 cases with severe PPH), and all of them were cured and discharged. The total incidence of PPH was 3.8%, while that of severe PPH was 0.4%. The estimated blood loss was at least 500 mLs and at most 5500 mLs. The age of patients was 20 to 43 years old, with an average age of 29.64±3.57 years. There were 505 cases of primipara and 220 cases of multipara. There included 718 cases of singleton pregnancy and 7 cases of twin pregnancy. Among them, PPH occurred in 633 of 12081 cases in vaginal delivery and 55 of 584 cases in forceps delivery. And there were 37 cases with severe PPH occurred in 6312 cases of cesarean section. The indications for cesarean section were as follows: 14 cases of scarred uterus, 9 cases of placental factors (including placenta previa, placenta accreta, and placental abruption), 5 cases of trial labor failure, 4 cases of twin pregnancy, 1 case of intrauterine infection, 1 case of severe preeclampsia, 1 case of macrosomia, 1 case of breech, and 1 case of elderly primipara.

2. Comparison of the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage in different delivery methods

In vaginal delivery group and forceps delivery group, the incidence of PPH was 5.2% (633/12081) and 9.4% (55/584) respectively, while the incidence of severe PPH was 0.3% (36/12081) and 0.5% (3/584) respectively. The incidence of severe PPH in the cesarean section group was 0.6% (37/6312). The incidence of PPH in the forceps delivery group was significantly higher than that of vaginal delivery group (χ2 = 19.27, P<0.001). There were statistical differences in the incidence of severe PPH in different delivery methods (χ2 = 8.83, P = 0.012) (Table 1). The incidence of severe PPH in the cesarean section group was significantly higher than that of vaginal delivery group (χ2 = 8.71, P = 0.003). But there was no significant difference in the incidence of severe PPH between forceps delivery group and vaginal delivery group, and between forceps delivery group and cesarean section group (P>0.05).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Comparison of the incidence of severe postpartum hemorrhage in different delivery methods.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289271.t001

3. The causes of postpartum hemorrhage in different delivery methods

The common causes of PPH can be classified into four aspects: uterine atony, placental factors, birth canal lacerations and coagulation defects. The causes of PPH in this study were as follows: uterine atony accounted for 84% (609/725), birth canal lacerations accounted for 10.2% (74/725), placental factors accounted for 5.5% (40/725) and coagulation defects accounted for 0.3% (2/725). The percentage of causes of PPH was statistically different in different modes of delivery (P<0.001) (Table 2). The primary reason of PPH in the vaginal delivery group was uterine atony (accounted for 87.2%), which was significantly different from the forceps delivery group and the cesarean section group (χ2 = 25.83, P<0.001; χ2 = 18.01, P<0.001). The main causes of PPH in forceps delivery group were uterine atony (accounted for 61.8%) and birth canal lacerations (accounted for 34.5%). The proportion of birth canal laceration was higher than that in vaginal delivery group and cesarean section group (χ2 = 57.85, P<0.001; χ2 = 16.08, P<0.001). The main causes of PPH in cesarean section group were uterine atony (accounted for 62.2%) and placental factors (accounted for 35.1%). The proportion of placental factors was higher than that in vaginal delivery group and forceps delivery group (χ2 = 35.25, P<0.001; χ2 = 16.11, P<0.001).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. The causes of postpartum hemorrhage in different delivery methods.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289271.t002

4. Comparison of clinical data and estimated blood loss of patients with postpartum hemorrhage in different delivery modes

In this study, the age, body mass (BMI), birth weight, gestational age, gravidity, parity, peripheral blood hemoglobin concentration drop, and estimated blood loss of patients with PPH in different delivery modes were statistically different (P<0.05) (Table 3). Furthermore, the age, gravidity, parity and estimated blood loss of patients with PPH in the cesarean section group were higher than those of the vaginal delivery group (P<0.01) and the forceps group (P<0.01). However, there was no significant difference in estimated blood loss of patients with PPH between the vaginal delivery group and the forceps delivery group (P = 0.078). The proportion of blood transfusion in cesarean section is significantly higher than that in vaginal delivery and forceps delivery (χ2 = 231.03, P<0.001).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Comparison of clinical data, blood loss and blood transfusion of patients with postpartum hemorrhage in different delivery modes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289271.t003

Discussion

1. The quantitative assessment of postpartum blood loss

At present, there is no absolutely accurate method to assess postpartum blood loss. Both the gravimetric method [9, 27] and the volumetric method (a surgical drape marked with scale lines placed under maternal buttocks) [8, 19] are more accurate than the visual method. A combined method (direct measurements of spilled blood and sucker bottle volumes, and weighing of surgical towels and drapes before and after use) is considered feasible to evaluate the blood loss during cesarean section [28], but it takes 35~45 minutes. In this study, we adopted an improved quantitative assessment method of postpartum blood loss combining volumetric method, gravimetric method and area method. This improved assessment method integrates the advantages of the three assessment methods, which is less affected by the subjective factors of the evaluator. Compared with the traditional visual method, the accuracy of blood loss assessment is further improved, and the operation is simple and no cumbersome. The easy processing procedures and the least experimental equipment ensure the timeliness of the assessment of postpartum blood loss, so it is believed that the clinical practicality is strong. However, this method also has some limitations. The bleeding is easily mixed with amniotic fluid and irrigation fluid which interferes with the accuracy of evaluation. The measurement is started after the neonatal delivery and the amniotic fluid collected completely before placenta delivery can reduce measurement errors. During vaginal delivery, when the amniotic fluid had basically flowed completely, then the blood collection basin was placed under the maternal buttocks to collect blood loss. When the placenta was delivered, only a small amount of amniotic fluid would flow into the basin, which had little impact on the evaluation of postpartum blood loss. During cesarean section, the assistant used a negative pressure aspirator to collect as much amniotic fluid as possible after the rupture of amniotic membrane and record the amount of amniotic fluid in the suction bottle. Then removed the amount of amniotic fluid when calculating the postpartum blood loss in the suction bottle. When a patient is suffering massive bleeding within a short period of time, it is difficult to collect all the blood loss, which will also increase the measurement error of the blood loss. Other commonly used methods for evaluating postpartum hemorrhage include shock index (SI), laboratory tests (peripheral blood hemoglobin concentration and hematocrit indirectly predict blood loss). A multicenter retrospective study on "Shock Index and Postpartum Hemorrhage in Vaginal Delivery" pointed out that sensitivity of SI is low, and clinical judgment must include other vital signs and symptoms related to hypovolemic shock [29]. Le Bas Abigail et al. suggested that the normal SI range should be 0.7–0.9. SI greater than 1.0 seems to be a useful aid for estimating blood loss in severe PPH and predicting the demand for blood transfusion [30]. Peripheral blood hemoglobin concentration and hematocrit are easily affected by many factors, such as blood concentrating in the early stage of PPH, haemodilution following massive intravenous infusions during PPH and blood transfusion. Thus, the changes in hemoglobin concentration and hematocrit are often not accurately reflected the actual amount of bleeding [31]. So the significance of laboratory testing lies more in the monitoring the patient’s condition and evaluating the effectiveness of treatments, rather than the diagnosis of acute PPH. At present, it is difficult to accurately estimate the amount of postpartum blood loss, and the underestimation of the amount of blood loss may delay the rescue opportunity. Therefore, the early prediction and recognition of postpartum hemorrhage is more important.

At present, there are several studies focusing on the construction of early prediction models for the risk of PPH [32–36]. These models include risk factors such as advanced age, macrosomia, multiple fetus, multiple parturition, length of labor, delivery methods, scarred uterus, placental implants, and hypertensive disorder complicating pregnancy, pregnancy with uterine fibroids, anemia and other independent risk factors for PPH. These risk assessment tools screen out patients at high risk for PPH, which will help improve preparedness for PPH, strengthen monitoring patient and early identification of PPH, and the use of preventive measures to reduce the occurrence of PPH.

2. The effects of different delivery modes on the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage

The overall incidence of PPH in this study was 3.8%, and the incidence of severe PPH was 0.4%, which is much lower than previous literature reported (varies from 7.2% to 25.7%) [6].The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage is related to the regions, local medical level, the attention to prenatal examinations and the awareness of prevention of postpartum hemorrhage. Our hospital is a specialized hospital of gynecology and obstetrics in Hangzhou, representing the leading medical level in China. Our hospital attaches great importance to postpartum hemorrhage and takes a variety of measures to reduce the occurrence of postpartum hemorrhage, including weight management during pregnancy to prevent the occurrence of macrosomia, screening high-risk factors of postpartum hemorrhage, the use of uterotonic in the third stage of labor, refined management of the labor process, improvement of the evaluation method of postpartum blood loss and the treatment drill of postpartum hemorrhage.

Analysis of the incidence of PPH in different delivery methods showed that the incidence of PPH in forceps delivery was significantly higher than that of vaginal delivery (9.4% vs 5.2%, P<0.001), but it did not significantly increase the incidence of severe PPH (0.5% vs 0.3%, P>0.05), and the incidence of severe PPH is between vaginal delivery and cesarean section. Compared with vaginal delivery, the incidence of severe PPH in the cesarean section group was significantly higher (0.6% vs 0.3%, P = 0.003). This difference is not only associated with the cesarean section procedure but also with the pregnancy complications experienced by the patients who undergo cesarean section delivery. Most pregnant women have pregnancy complications (such as severe preeclampsia, complete placenta previa, placenta accreta, etc.), advanced age, multiple pregnancies, history of cesarean section and other high-risk factors for PPH. At the same time, studies have confirmed that the risk of PPH of emergency cesarean section is further increased than that of elective cesarean section [37, 38].

3. The analysis of causes of postpartum hemorrhage

The common causes of PPH can be classified into four aspects: uterine atony, placental factors, birth canal lacerations and coagulation dysfunction. The four major causes can coexist or be causal to each other. This study showed that PPH caused by uterine atony, birth canal laceration, placental factors and abnormal blood coagulation accounted for 84%, 10.2%, 5.5%, and 0.3% respectively. Uterine atony is still the main cause of PPH, but there are differences in the causes of PPH in different way of delivery. Uterine atony is the primary reason in vaginal delivery group. Uterine atony and birth canal lacerations are the major reasons in forceps delivery group. In the cesarean section group, uterine atony and placental factors are the major factors. The observed difference may be attributed to an increased risk of birth canal lacerations during forceps delivery, as well as a tendency among high-risk patients with placental factors (such as placenta previa and placenta accreta) to opt for cesarean delivery. Uterine atony is still the prime cause of PPH in China. Therefore, powerful uterotonics are the first choice for the treatment of PPH [39]. In recent years, the decrease in maternal mortality caused by PPH is mainly attributed to the increase in the proportion of blood transfusion and perinatal hysterectomy [4, 40]. Obstetric hysterectomy can be adopted when other measures for severe postpartum hemorrhage are ineffective (such as uterine packing, B-Lynch suture, etc.) or cannot be obtained. There is currently no standards and evidence-based basis on how much postpartum blood loss requires hysterectomy [2]. In this study, a patient with estimated blood loss of 5500 mL was diagnosed with amniotic fluid embolism, and finally underwent hysterectomy after medication, massive blood transfusion, and uterine packing.

Limitations

As a single-center retrospective study, this study may have selection bias in case selection. Moreover, it is challenging to ensure that the three combined blood loss assessment methods are strictly implemented in all cases. Additionally, bleeding can be mixed with amniotic fluid and irrigation fluid, which can interfere with the accuracy of evaluation. As a result, there is a possibility of inaccuracy the blood loss in this study. And in terms of data analysis, there is a lack of adjustment analysis for demographic factors.

Conclusions

In summary, this study confirmed that forceps delivery and cesarean section increased the risk of PPH, while forceps delivery did not significantly increase the incidence of severe PPH. Uterine atony remains the leading cause of PPH, while birth canal laceration and placental factors are the second most common causes of PPH in forceps delivery and cesarean section, respectively. In this study, the combination of volumetric method, gravimetric method and area method was used to improve the accuracy of quantitatively assessment of postpartum blood loss. In practice, it is found that this method shows strong clinical practicability and is not affected by subjective factors, although it still has limitations. In the future, we still need to continue to focus on the early prediction and identification of PPH, and further modify the quantitative assessment of postpartum blood loss.

Acknowledgments

We thank the participants and medical staff for their participation. This manuscript was reviewed by Professor Chi from Huazhong University of Science and Technology in China.

References

  1. 1. National Maternal and Child Health Monitoring Office. Analysis report on the main results of the National Maternal and Child Health Three Nets Monitoring in 2018 (excerpt). National Maternal and Child Health Monitoring and Annual Report Newsletter. 2020;95 (3) 1–9. Available at http://www.mchscn.cn/ViewByStages-34/660.html. Accessed October 10, 2021.
  2. 2. Montufar-Rueda C, Rodriguez L, Jarquin JD, Barboza A, Bustillo MC, Marin F, et al. Severe postpartum hemorrhage from uterine atony: a multicentric study. J Pregnancy. 2013;2013:525914. pmid:24363935.
  3. 3. Practice Bulletin No. 183: Postpartum Hemorrhage. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2017;130(4):e168–e86. pmid:28937571.
  4. 4. Callaghan WM, Kuklina EV, Berg CJ. Trends in postpartum hemorrhage: United States, 1994–2006. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(4):353.e1–6. pmid:20350642.
  5. 5. Muir HA. Pharmacologic intervention for managing uterine atony and related maternal hemorrhage: what is the most effective drug dose? Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d’anesthesie. 2013;60(11):1047–53. pmid:24092476.
  6. 6. Calvert C, Thomas SL, Ronsmans C, Wagner KS, Adler AJ, Filippi V. Identifying regional variation in the prevalence of postpartum haemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e41114. pmid:22844432.
  7. 7. Lin JH, Lin QD, Liu JH, Pan ZR, Hu LW, Wang L.Reassessment of postpartum hemorrhage. Chinese Journal of Practical Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2002(02):27–29. [In Chinese, English abstract].
  8. 8. 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(6):325–8. pmid:27353510.
  9. 9. Al Kadri HM, Al Anazi BK, Tamim HM. Visual estimation versus gravimetric measurement of postpartum blood loss: a prospective cohort study. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics. 2011;283(6):1207–13. pmid:20508942.
  10. 10. Chestnut DH. Postpartum hemorrhage–update on problems of definitions and diagnosis. Yearbook of Anesthesiology and Pain Management. 2012;2012:322–3.
  11. 11. Bingham D, Lyndon A, Lagrew D, Main EK. A state-wide obstetric hemorrhage quality improvement initiative. MCN The American journal of maternal child nursing. 2011;36(5):297–304. pmid:21857200.
  12. 12. Della Torre M, Kilpatrick SJ, Hibbard JU, Simonson L, Scott S, Koch A, et al. Assessing preventability for obstetric hemorrhage. American journal of perinatology. 2011;28(10):753–60. pmid:21698554.
  13. 13. Seacrist MJ, VanOtterloo LR, Morton CH, Main EK. Quality Improvement Opportunities Identified Through Case Review of Pregnancy-Related Deaths From Obstetric Hemorrhage. Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing: JOGNN. 2019;48(3):288–99. pmid:30981726.
  14. 14. Hancock A, Weeks AD, Lavender DT. Is accurate and reliable blood loss estimation the ’crucial step’ in early detection of postpartum haemorrhage: an integrative review of the literature. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2015;15:230. pmid:26415952.
  15. 15. Andrikopoulou M, D’Alton ME. Postpartum hemorrhage: early identification challenges. Seminars in perinatology. 2019;43(1):11–7. pmid:30503400
  16. 16. Larsson C, Saltvedt S, Wiklund I, Pahlen S, Andolf E. Estimation of blood loss after cesarean section and vaginal delivery has low validity with a tendency to exaggeration. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica. 2006;85(12):1448–52. pmid:17260220.
  17. 17. Wilcox CF 3rd, Hunt AB, Owens CA Jr. The measurement of blood lost during cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1959;77(4):772–9. pmid:13637140.
  18. 18. Chua S, Ho LM, Vanaja K, Nordstrom L, Roy AC, Arulkumaran S. Validation of a laboratory method of measuring postpartum blood loss. Gynecologic and obstetric investigation. 1998;46(1):31–3. pmid:9692338.
  19. 19. Patel A, Goudar SS, Geller SE, Kodkany BS, Edlavitch SA, Wagh K, et al. Drape estimation vs. visual assessment for estimating postpartum hemorrhage. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2006;93(3):220–4. pmid:16626718.
  20. 20. Stafford I, Dildy GA, Clark SL, Belfort MA. Visually estimated and calculated blood loss in vaginal and cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(5):519.e1–7. pmid:18639209.
  21. 21. Wangwe PJ, Balandya B. Accuracy in diagnosis of postpartum haemorrhage using visual estimation of blood loss versus change in haematocrit in a tertiary teaching hospital in Tanzania. Tanzania journal of health research. 2012;14(2):152–7. pmid:26591737.
  22. 22. Quantitative Blood Loss in Obstetric Hemorrhage: ACOG COMMITTEE OPINION, Number 794. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2019;134(6):e150–e6. pmid:31764759.
  23. 23. Ma HW, Liu XH.Changes in the etiology of postpartum hemorrhage and countermeasures. Journal of Practical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2021, 37(03):165–168. [In Chinese, English abstract].
  24. 24. Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, Tunçalp Ö, Moller AB, Daniels J, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. The Lancet Global health. 2014;2(6):e323–33. pmid:25103301.
  25. 25. Alkema L, Chou D, Hogan D, Zhang S, Moller AB, Gemmill A, et al. Global, regional, and national levels and trends in maternal mortality between 1990 and 2015, with scenario-based projections to 2030: a systematic analysis by the UN Maternal Mortality Estimation Inter-Agency Group. Lancet (London, England). 2016;387(10017):462–74. pmid:26584737.
  26. 26. Liu XH.Guidelines for the prevention and management of postpartum hemorrhage (2014). Chinese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2014, 49(09): 641–646. [In Chinese].
  27. 27. Lee MH, Ingvertsen BT, Kirpensteijn J, Jensen AL, Kristensen AT. Quantification of surgical blood loss. Veterinary surgery: VS. 2006;35(4):388–93. pmid:16756621.
  28. 28. Withanathantrige M, Goonewardene M, Dandeniya R, Gunatilake P, Gamage S. Comparison of four methods of blood loss estimation after cesarean delivery. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2016;135(1):51–5. pmid:27451396.
  29. 29. Ushida T, Kotani T, Imai K, Nakano-Kobayashi T, Nakamura N, Moriyama Y, et al. Shock Index and Postpartum Hemorrhage in Vaginal Deliveries: A Multicenter Retrospective Study. Shock (Augusta, Ga). 2021;55(3):332–7. pmid:32769817.
  30. 30. Le Bas A, Chandraharan E, Addei A, Arulkumaran S. Use of the "obstetric shock index" as an adjunct in identifying significant blood loss in patients with massive postpartum hemorrhage. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2014;124(3):253–5. pmid:24373705.
  31. 31. Combs CA, Murphy EL, Laros RK Jr. Factors associated with postpartum hemorrhage with vaginal birth. Obstetrics and gynecology. 1991;77(1):69–76. pmid:1984230.
  32. 32. Rubio-Álvarez A, Molina-Alarcón M, Arias-Arias Á, Hernández-Martínez A. Development and validation of a predictive model for excessive postpartum blood loss: A retrospective, cohort study. International journal of nursing studies. 2018;79:114–21. pmid:29223625.
  33. 33. Chen B, Zhang L, Wang D, Li J, Hou Y, Yang T, et al. Nomogram to predict postpartum hemorrhage in cesarean delivery for women with scarred uterus: A retrospective cohort study in China. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020;46(9):1772–82. pmid:32662194.
  34. 34. Chen C, Liu X, Chen D, Huang S, Yan X, Liu H, et al. A risk model to predict severe postpartum hemorrhage in patients with placenta previa: a single-center retrospective study. Annals of palliative medicine. 2019;8(5):611–21. pmid:31594367.
  35. 35. Dunkerton SE, Jeve YB, Walkinshaw N, Breslin E, Singhal T. Predicting Postpartum Hemorrhage (PPH) during Cesarean Delivery Using the Leicester PPH Predict Tool: A Retrospective Cohort Study. American journal of perinatology. 2018;35(2):163–9. pmid:28847038.
  36. 36. Albright CM, Spillane TE, Hughes BL, Rouse DJ. A Regression Model for Prediction of Cesarean-Associated Blood Transfusion. American journal of perinatology. 2019;36(9):879–85. pmid:30743270.
  37. 37. Al-Zirqi I, Vangen S, Forsen L, Stray-Pedersen B. Prevalence and risk factors of severe obstetric haemorrhage. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. 2008;115(10):1265–72. pmid:18715412.
  38. 38. Al-Zirqi I, Vangen S, Forsén L, Stray-Pedersen B. Effects of Onset of Labor and Mode of Delivery on Severe Postpartum Hemorrhage. Obstetric Anesthesia Digest. 2010;30(3):150–1.
  39. 39. Liu XH, Chen M. Clinical management of postpartum hemorrhage based on big data. Chinese Journal of Practical Gynecology and Obstetrics 2018, 34(01):33–37. [In Chinese, English abstract]. CNKI:SUN:ZGSF.0.2018-01-012.
  40. 40. Creanga AA, Berg CJ, Ko JY, Farr SL, Tong VT, Bruce FC, et al. Maternal mortality and morbidity in the United States: where are we now? Journal of women’s health (2002). 2014;23(1):3–9. pmid:24383493.