Postpartum hemorrhage in electronic health records: risk factors at admission and in-hospital occurrence.

Raíssa Isabelle Leão Martins, Jussara de Souza Mayrink Novais, Zilma Silveira Nogueira Reis
{"title":"Postpartum hemorrhage in electronic health records: risk factors at admission and in-hospital occurrence.","authors":"Raíssa Isabelle Leão Martins, Jussara de Souza Mayrink Novais, Zilma Silveira Nogueira Reis","doi":"10.61622/rbgo/2024AO14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal death globally. Therefore, prevention strategies have been created. The study aimed to evaluate the occurrence of PPH and its risk factors after implementing a risk stratification at admission in a teaching hospital.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort involving a database of SISMATER® electronic medical record. Classification in low, medium, or high risk for PPH was performed through data filled out by the obstetrician-assistant. PPH frequency was calculated, compared among these groups and associated with the risk factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The prevalence of PPH was 6.8%, 131 among 1,936 women. Sixty-eight (51.9%) of them occurred in the high-risk group, 30 (22.9%) in the medium-risk and 33 (25.2%) in the low-risk group. The adjusted-odds ratio (OR) for PPH were analyzed using a confidence interval (95% CI) and was significantly higher in who presented multiple pregnancy (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 6.49), active bleeding on admission (OR 6.12, 95% CI 1.20 to 4.65), non-cephalic presentation (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.20 to 4.65), retained placenta (OR 9.39, 95% CI 2.90 to 30.46) and placental abruption (OR 6.95, 95% CI 2.06 to 23.48). Vaginal delivery figured out as a protective factor (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.98).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Prediction of PPH is still a challenge since its unpredictable factor arrangements. The fact that the analysis did not demonstrate a relationship between risk category and frequency of PPH could be attributable to the efficacy of the strategy: Women classified as \"high-risk\" received adequate medical care, consequently.</p>","PeriodicalId":74699,"journal":{"name":"Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11075434/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61622/rbgo/2024AO14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal death globally. Therefore, prevention strategies have been created. The study aimed to evaluate the occurrence of PPH and its risk factors after implementing a risk stratification at admission in a teaching hospital.

Methods: A retrospective cohort involving a database of SISMATER® electronic medical record. Classification in low, medium, or high risk for PPH was performed through data filled out by the obstetrician-assistant. PPH frequency was calculated, compared among these groups and associated with the risk factors.

Results: The prevalence of PPH was 6.8%, 131 among 1,936 women. Sixty-eight (51.9%) of them occurred in the high-risk group, 30 (22.9%) in the medium-risk and 33 (25.2%) in the low-risk group. The adjusted-odds ratio (OR) for PPH were analyzed using a confidence interval (95% CI) and was significantly higher in who presented multiple pregnancy (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 6.49), active bleeding on admission (OR 6.12, 95% CI 1.20 to 4.65), non-cephalic presentation (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.20 to 4.65), retained placenta (OR 9.39, 95% CI 2.90 to 30.46) and placental abruption (OR 6.95, 95% CI 2.06 to 23.48). Vaginal delivery figured out as a protective factor (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.98).

Conclusion: Prediction of PPH is still a challenge since its unpredictable factor arrangements. The fact that the analysis did not demonstrate a relationship between risk category and frequency of PPH could be attributable to the efficacy of the strategy: Women classified as "high-risk" received adequate medical care, consequently.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
电子健康记录中的产后出血:入院时的风险因素和院内发生率。
目的:产后出血(PPH)是全球产妇死亡的主要原因。因此,预防策略应运而生。本研究旨在评估一家教学医院在实施入院风险分层后的 PPH 发生率及其风险因素:方法:通过 SISMATER® 电子病历数据库进行回顾性队列分析。通过产科助理填写的数据对 PPH 进行低、中、高风险分层。计算了PPH发生率,比较了这些组别之间的差异,并将其与风险因素联系起来:在 1 936 名产妇中,PPH 的发生率为 6.8%,共 131 人。其中 68 例(51.9%)发生在高危组,30 例(22.9%)发生在中危组,33 例(25.2%)发生在低危组。使用置信区间(95% CI)分析了 PPH 的调整比例(OR),结果显示,多胎妊娠(OR 2.88,95% CI 1.28 至 6.49)、入院时活动性出血(OR 6.12,95% CI 1.20 至 4.65)、非头位(OR 2.36,95% CI 1.20 至 4.65)、胎盘滞留(OR 9.39,95% CI 2.90 至 30.46)和胎盘早剥(OR 6.95,95% CI 2.06 至 23.48)。阴道分娩是一个保护因素(OR 0.58,95% CI 0.34 至 0.98):结论:PPH 的预测仍是一项挑战,因为其因素安排难以预测。分析并未显示风险类别与 PPH 发生频率之间的关系,这可能是由于该策略的有效性:因此,被列为 "高风险 "的妇女得到了适当的医疗护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Syphilis and pregnancy. Immunosuppressants in women with repeated implantation failure in assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Multidisciplinary team training in postpartum hemorrhage: impact on the use of blood products. Neonatal and maternal outcomes of mRNA versus Non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. A new screening of preterm birth in gestation with short cervix after pessary plus progesterone.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1