Accuracy of Blood Loss Measurement during Cesarean Delivery

Abstract

Objective This study aims to compare the accuracy of visual, quantitative gravimetric, and colorimetric methods used to determine blood loss during cesarean delivery procedures employing a hemoglobin extraction assay as the reference standard.

Study Design In 50 patients having cesarean deliveries blood loss determined by assays of hemoglobin content on surgical sponges and in suction canisters was compared with obstetricians' visual estimates, a quantitative gravimetric method, and the blood loss determined by a novel colorimetric system. Agreement between the reference assay and other measures was evaluated by the Bland–Altman method.

Results Compared with the blood loss measured by the reference assay (470 ± 296 mL), the colorimetric system (572 ± 334 mL) was more accurate than either visual estimation (928 ± 261 mL) or gravimetric measurement (822 ± 489 mL). The correlation between the assay method and the colorimetric system was more predictive (standardized coefficient = 0.951, adjusted R² = 0.902) than either visual estimation (standardized coefficient = 0.700, adjusted R² = 00.479) or the gravimetric determination (standardized coefficient = 0.564, adjusted R² = 0.304).

Conclusion During cesarean delivery, measuring blood loss using colorimetric image analysis is superior to visual estimation and a gravimetric method. Implementation of colorimetric analysis may enhance the ability of management protocols to improve clinical outcomes.

Keywords

cesarean delivery - blood loss measurement - postpartum hemorrhage - quality improvement

• References

• 1 Callaghan WM, Kuklina EV, Berg CJ. Trends in postpartum hemorrhage: United States, 1994-2006. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202 (04) 353.e1-353.e6
• 2 Berg CJ, Harper MA, Atkinson SM. , et al. Preventability of pregnancy-related deaths: results of a state-wide review. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106 (06) 1228-1234
• 3 Lyndon A, Lagrew D, Shields L, Main E, Cape V. . Improving Health Care Response to Obstetric Hemorrhage. (California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative Toolkit to Transform Maternity Care) Developed under contract #11–10006 with the California Department of Public Health; Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Division; Published by the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, 3/17/15. Available at: http://health.utah.gov/uwnqc/documents/CaliforniaToolkittoTransformMaternityCare.pdf . Accessed August 1, 2016
• 4 Main EK, Goffman D, Scavone BM. , et al; National Partnership for Maternal Safety; Council for Patient Safety in Women's Health Care. National Partnership for Maternal Safety: consensus bundle on obstetric hemorrhage. Anesth Analg 2015; 121 (01) 142-148
• 5 Brasel KJ, Guse C, Gentilello LM, Nirula R. Heart rate: is it truly a vital sign?. J Trauma 2007; 62 (04) 812-817
• 6 Convertino VA, Moulton SL, Grudic GZ. , et al. Use of advanced machine-learning techniques for noninvasive monitoring of hemorrhage. J Trauma 2011; 71 (1, Suppl): S25-S32
• 7 Orlinsky M, Shoemaker W, Reis ED, Kerstein MD. Current controversies in shock and resuscitation. Surg Clin North Am 2001; 81 (06) 1217-1262 , xi–xii
• 8 Bose P, Regan F, Paterson-Brown S. Improving the accuracy of estimated blood loss at obstetric haemorrhage using clinical reconstructions. BJOG 2006; 113 (08) 919-924
• 9 Schorn MN. Measurement of blood loss: review of the literature. J Midwifery Womens Health 2010; 55 (01) 20-27
• 10 Toledo P, Eosakul ST, Goetz K, Wong CA, Grobman WA. Decay in blood loss estimation skills after web-based didactic training. Simul Healthc 2012; 7 (01) 18-21
• 11 Johar RS, Smith RP. Assessing gravimetric estimation of intraoperative blood loss. J Gynecol Surg 1993; 9 (03) 151-154
• 12 Lilley G, Burkett-St-Laurent D, Precious E. , et al. Measurement of blood loss during postpartum haemorrhage. Int J Obstet Anesth 2015; 24 (01) 8-14
• 13 Holmes AA, Konig G, Ting V. , et al. Clinical evaluation of a novel system for monitoring surgical hemoglobin loss. Anesth Analg 2014; 119 (03) 588-594
• 14 Konig G, Holmes AA, Garcia R. , et al. In vitro evaluation of a novel system for monitoring surgical hemoglobin loss. Anesth Analg 2014; 119 (03) 595-600
• 15 Sharareh B, Woolwine S, Satish S, Abraham P, Schwarzkopf R. Real time intraoperative monitoring of blood loss with a novel tablet application. Open Orthop J 2015; 9: 422-426
• 16 Hill SE, Broomer B, Stover J, White W. Accuracy of estimated blood loss in spine surgery. In: Proceedings of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) 2011 Annual Meeting. ; October 15–19, 2011. Chicago, IL: . Abstract A054
• 17 Hill SE, Broomer B, Stover J, White W, Richardson W. Bipolar tissue sealant device decreases hemoglobin loss in multilevel spine surgery. Transfusion 2012; 52 (12) 2594-2599
• 18 Newton J, Barnard G, Collins W. A rapid method for measuring menstrual blood loss using automated extraction. Contraception 1977; 16: 269-282
• 19 Magnay JL, Schönicke G, Nevatte TM, O'Brien S, Junge W. Validation of a rapid alkaline hematin technique to measure menstrual blood loss on feminine towels containing superabsorbent polymers. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (02) 394-398
• 20 van Eijkeren MA, Scholten PC, Christiaens GC, Alsbach GP, Haspels AA. The alkaline hematin method for measuring menstrual blood loss--a modification and its clinical use in menorrhagia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1986; 22 (5-6): 345-351
• 21 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1 (8476): 307-310
• 22 Guinn NR, Broomer BW, White W, Richardson W, Hill SE. Comparison of visually estimated blood loss with direct hemoglobin measurement in multilevel spine surgery. Transfusion 2013; 53 (11) 2790-2794
• 23 Bland JM, Altman DG. . How can I decide the sample size for a study of agreement between two methods of measurement? Updated: January 12, 2004. Available at: http://www-users.york.ac.uk/∼mb55/meas/sizemeth.htm . Accessed September 23, 2016