Hemorrhage risk score and peripartum quantified blood loss.

Q3 Medicine Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings Pub Date : 2024-11-05 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1080/08998280.2024.2419193
Rubinnis Gutierrez-Disla, Rachana Gheewala, Joshua Fogel, Allan J Jacobs
{"title":"Hemorrhage risk score and peripartum quantified blood loss.","authors":"Rubinnis Gutierrez-Disla, Rachana Gheewala, Joshua Fogel, Allan J Jacobs","doi":"10.1080/08998280.2024.2419193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Risk assessment tools are used by clinicians to predict which patients might have excessive bleeding. We studied the association between a peripartum hemorrhage risk assessment score using peripartum quantified blood loss (QBL) among those with vaginal deliveries who are often at lower risk for peripartum hemorrhage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective analysis of 1221 patients with term vaginal deliveries at a public New York City hospital, the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWOHNN) risk assessment tool was used to categorize patients as low risk, medium risk, or high risk for postpartum hemorrhage.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Low-risk scores were present in 925 (75.8%) patients, medium-risk scores in 268 (21.9%) patients, and high-risk scores in 28 (2.3%) patients. Outcome variables consisted of QBL (M = 213.8, SD = 215.00 mL), QBL ≥ 500 mL (n = 89, 7.3%), and ratio of postdelivery hematocrit to predelivery hematocrit (M = 0.9, SD = 0.08). High-risk score (B = 0.14, SE = 0.07, <i>P</i> = 0.04) but not medium-risk score was significantly associated with increased QBL as compared to low-risk score. Body mass index (BMI) measured as a continuous variable was significantly associated with increased QBL (B = 0.004, SE = 0.002, <i>P</i> = 0.049). However, BMI measured as a categorical variable using the AWOHNN cutoff score of >35 was not significantly associated with QBL. AWOHNN score was not significantly associated with QBL ≥ 500 mL or with the ratio of postdelivery hematocrit with predelivery hematocrit.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We recommend revising the AWOHNN measure to better reflect medium risk and to consider a different approach for BMI use as part of the AWOHNN risk score.</p>","PeriodicalId":8828,"journal":{"name":"Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings","volume":"38 1","pages":"7-14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11657149/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2024.2419193","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Risk assessment tools are used by clinicians to predict which patients might have excessive bleeding. We studied the association between a peripartum hemorrhage risk assessment score using peripartum quantified blood loss (QBL) among those with vaginal deliveries who are often at lower risk for peripartum hemorrhage.

Methods: In this retrospective analysis of 1221 patients with term vaginal deliveries at a public New York City hospital, the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWOHNN) risk assessment tool was used to categorize patients as low risk, medium risk, or high risk for postpartum hemorrhage.

Results: Low-risk scores were present in 925 (75.8%) patients, medium-risk scores in 268 (21.9%) patients, and high-risk scores in 28 (2.3%) patients. Outcome variables consisted of QBL (M = 213.8, SD = 215.00 mL), QBL ≥ 500 mL (n = 89, 7.3%), and ratio of postdelivery hematocrit to predelivery hematocrit (M = 0.9, SD = 0.08). High-risk score (B = 0.14, SE = 0.07, P = 0.04) but not medium-risk score was significantly associated with increased QBL as compared to low-risk score. Body mass index (BMI) measured as a continuous variable was significantly associated with increased QBL (B = 0.004, SE = 0.002, P = 0.049). However, BMI measured as a categorical variable using the AWOHNN cutoff score of >35 was not significantly associated with QBL. AWOHNN score was not significantly associated with QBL ≥ 500 mL or with the ratio of postdelivery hematocrit with predelivery hematocrit.

Conclusion: We recommend revising the AWOHNN measure to better reflect medium risk and to consider a different approach for BMI use as part of the AWOHNN risk score.

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
出血风险评分与围生期定量失血量。
背景:临床医生使用风险评估工具来预测哪些患者可能出现大出血。我们研究了围生期出血风险评估评分与围生期量化失血量(QBL)在阴道分娩的围生期出血风险较低的妇女之间的关系。方法:回顾性分析纽约市一家公立医院1221例阴道足月分娩患者,采用妇女健康、产科和新生儿护士协会(AWOHNN)风险评估工具将患者分为产后出血低风险、中风险和高风险。结果:925例(75.8%)患者出现低危评分,268例(21.9%)患者出现中危评分,28例(2.3%)患者出现高危评分。结果变量包括QBL (M = 213.8, SD = 215.00 mL)、QBL≥500 mL (n = 89, 7.3%)和产后红细胞比容与产前红细胞比容之比(M = 0.9, SD = 0.08)。与低危评分相比,高危评分(B = 0.14, SE = 0.07, P = 0.04)与QBL升高有显著相关性,而中危评分与QBL升高无显著相关性。身体质量指数(BMI)作为一个连续变量与QBL的增加显著相关(B = 0.004, SE = 0.002, P = 0.049)。然而,使用AWOHNN截止评分bbbb35作为分类变量测量的BMI与QBL没有显著相关性。AWOHNN评分与QBL≥500 mL或产后红细胞压积与产前红细胞压积之比无显著相关性。结论:我们建议修改AWOHNN测量方法以更好地反映中等风险,并考虑采用不同的方法将BMI作为AWOHNN风险评分的一部分。
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
245
期刊最新文献
Herpes zoster ophthalmicus temporally after COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review of uncontrolled case reports and case series. Prevalence of Kaposi sarcoma in the United States: SEER cross-sectional study. Institution of a formal multidisciplinary heart team for high-risk coronary revascularization. Barriers to guideline implementation. Avocations.
×
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