Advance misoprostol distribution for preventing and treating postpartum haemorrhage

Recommendations for scale-up of community-based misoprostol distribution programs

Community-based distribution of misoprostol for prevention of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in resource-poor settings has been shown to be safe and effective. However, global recommendations for prenatal distribution and monitoring within a community setting are not yet available. In order to successfully translate misoprostol and PPH research into policy and practice, several critical points must be considered. A focus on engaging the community, emphasizing the safe nature of community-based misoprostol distribution, supply chain management, effective distribution, coverage, and monitoring plans are essential elements to community-based misoprostol program introduction, expansion, or scale-up.

Treatment for primary postpartum haemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Primary postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is one of the top five causes of maternal mortality in both developed and developing countries.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of any intervention used for the treatment of primary PPH.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any interventions for the treatment of primary PPH.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed studies for eligibility and quality and extracted data independently. We contacted authors of the included studies to request more information.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with a total of 4052 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were included in this review.Four RCTs (1881 participants) compared misoprostol with placebo given in addition to conventional uterotonics. Adjunctive use of misoprostol (in the dose of 600 to 1000 mcg) with simultaneous administration of additional uterotonics did not provide additional benefit for our primary outcomes including maternal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 6.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 50.85), serious maternal morbidity (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.31), admission to intensive care (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.11) or hysterectomy (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.16 to 5.41).  Two RCTs (1787 participants) compared 800 mcg sublingual misoprostol versus oxytocin infusion as primary PPH treatment; one trial included women who had received prophylactic uterotonics, and the other did not. Primary outcomes did not differ between the two groups, although women given sublingual misoprostol were more likely to have additional blood loss of at least 1000 mL (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.04 to 6.75). Misoprostol was associated with a significant increase in vomiting and shivering.Two trials attempted to test the effectiveness of estrogen and tranexamic acid, respectively, but were too small for any meaningful comparisons of pre-specified outcomes.One study compared lower segment compression but was too small to assess impact on primary outcomes.We did not identify any trials evaluating surgical techniques or radiological interventions for women with primary PPH unresponsive to uterotonics and/or haemostatics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trials included in the current review were not adequately powered to assess impact on the primary outcome measures. Compared with misoprostol, oxytocin infusion is more effective and causes fewer side effects when used as first-line therapy for the treatment of primary PPH. When used after prophylactic uterotonics, misoprostol and oxytocin infusion worked similarly. The review suggests that among women who received oxytocin for the treatment of primary PPH, adjunctive use of misoprostol confers no added benefit.The role of tranexamic acid and compression methods requires further evaluation. Furthermore, future studies should focus on the best way to treat women who fail to respond to uterotonic therapy.