Abstract
Our objective was to determine whether there is a numerical difference between quantitative blood loss (QBL) versus visual estimation of blood loss (EBL) during cesarean delivery (CD), and whether initiation of QBL leads to increased recognition and intervention for postpartum hemorrhage. A retrospective review was conducted of 250 patients undergoing CD with only EBL documented and 250 patients undergoing CD with both EBL and QBL documented at Montefiore Medical Center between October 2017 and November 2018. Since May 2018, the protocol for all CD included documentation of EBL and QBL. Average EBL when documented alone (897.0ml ± 301.0ml) trended lower than average EBL when documented with QBL (940.0ml ± 371.0ml, P=0.161). For CD with both blood loss documented, average EBL (940.0ml ± 371.0ml) was significantly lower than average QBL (1065.3ml ± 649.8ml, P=0.0001). CD with both blood loss documented had a greater number of blood transfusions (24 CD, 9.6%) versus only EBL documented (14 CD, 5.6%) (P=0.125). The use of QBL may function in the algorithm to determine up-front resuscitative intervention to improve maternal outcomes and merits further study.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
