A global quantitative survey of hemostatic assessment in postpartum hemorrhage and experience with associated bleeding disorders
Authors James AH, Cooper DL, Paidas MJ
Received 11 January 2017
Accepted for publication 9 May 2017
Published 3 July 2017 Volume 2017:9 Pages 477—485
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Amy Norman
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Professor Elie Al-Chaer
Andra H James,1 David L Cooper,2 Michael J Paidas3
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, 2Clinical, Medical and Regulatory Affairs, Novo Nordisk Inc., Plainsboro, NJ, 3Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Yale Women and Children’s Center for Blood Disorders and Preeclampsia Advancement, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
Purpose: Coagulopathy may be a serious complicating or contributing factor to postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), and should be promptly recognized to ensure proper bleeding management. This study aims to evaluate the approaches of obstetrician-gynecologists worldwide towards assessing massive PPH caused by underlying bleeding disorders.
Methods: A quantitative survey was completed by 302 obstetrician-gynecologists from 6 countries (the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Japan). The survey included questions on the use of hematologic laboratory studies, interpretation of results, laboratory’s role in coagulation assessments, and experience with bleeding disorders.
Results: Overall, the most common definitions of “massive” PPH were >2,000 mL (39%) and >1,500 mL (34%) blood loss. The most common criteria for rechecking a “stat” complete blood count and for performing coagulation studies were a drop in blood pressure (73%) and ongoing visible bleeding (78%), respectively. Laboratory coagulation (prothrombin time/activated partial thromboplastin time [PT/aPTT]) and factor VIII/IX assays were performed on-site more often than were mixing studies (laboratory coagulation studies, 93%; factor VIII/IX assays, 63%; mixing studies, 22%). Most commonly consulted sources of additional information were colleagues within one’s own specialty (68%) and other specialists (67%). Most respondents had consulted with a hematologist (78%; least, Germany [56%]; greatest, UK [98%]). The most common reason for not consulting was hematologist unavailability (44%). The most commonly reported thresholds for concern with PT and aPTT were 13 to 20 seconds (36%) and 30 to 45 seconds (50%), respectively. Most respondents reported having discovered an underlying bleeding disorder (58%; least, Japan [35%]; greatest, Spain [74%]).
Conclusion: Global survey results highlight similarities and differences between countries in how PPH is assessed and varying levels of obstetrician-gynecologist experience with identification of underlying bleeding disorders and engagement of hematology consultants. Opportunities to improve patient management of PPH associated with bleeding disorders include greater familiarity with interpreting PT/aPTT test results and identification of and consistent consultation with hematologists with relevant expertise.
Keywords: postpartum hemorrhage, acquired hemophilia, bleeding disorders, hematologist, coagulation studies
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]