Prehospital Management of Postpartum Hemorrhage-A National, Cross-Sectional Study in Norway

INTRODUCTION

Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is a critical birth complication, and is stated by the World Health Organization (WHO) as among the five most frequent causes of death during pregnancy. External aortic compression (EAC) is recommended by the WHO as an intervention to achieve temporary bleeding control. An increasing number of births outside hospital underlines the importance of competence in handling potential birth complications, such as PPH. The aim of this study was to assess prehospital personnel's education, training, knowledge, and experiences regarding PPH and EAC across Norway.

METHODS

Prehospital personnel were invited to respond to a questionnaire through social media. Questions included those on education, training, knowledge, and experience regarding PPH and EAC. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 28 was used to analyze the data, using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Over a two-month period, 211 prehospital personnel responded to the questionnaire, of whom 55.5% were male. The respondents had an average of 10.3 years of prehospital experience. About half of the respondents had received education (48.6%) and training (62.4%) in PPH management. Still, 95.7 percent reported a need for more education and training. On knowledge questions, only half of the responses were correct (43.7% to 60.5%). Only 21 percent of the respondents had experienced patients with PPH, and of these only 3.8 percent had used EAC. Bimanual uterine compression was the most frequent intervention used (62.5%) across hospital trusts.

CONCLUSIONS

Even if prehospital personnel receive education and training in the management of PPH and EAC, almost all report needing more. The results indicate a national variation, which may be discussed as to whether it is appropriate.

External Aortic Compression in Noncompressible Truncal Hemorrhage and Traumatic Cardiac Arrest: A Scoping Review

External aortic compression has been investigated as a treatment for non-compressible truncal haemorrhage in trauma patients. We sought to systematically gather and tabulate the available evidence around external aortic compression. We were specifically interested in its ability to achieve hemostasis and aid in resuscitation of traumatic arrest and severe shock and to consider physiological changes and adverse effects. A scoping review approach was chosen due to the highly variable existing literature. We were guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, using the specific extension for scoping reviews. Searches were done on PubMed and Scopus databases in October 2020. We found that a range of studies have investigated external aortic compression in a variety of settings, including case reports and small case series, porcine hemorrhage models and effects on healthy volunteers. External aortic compression for postpartum hemorrhage in a single center provided some evidence of effectiveness. Overall the level of evidence is limited, however, external aortic compression does appear able to achieve cessation of distal blood flow. Furthermore, it appears to improve many relevant physiological parameters in the setting of hypovolemic shock. Application for more than 60 minutes appears to cause increasingly problematic complications. In conclusion we find that the role of external aortic compression warrants further research. The intervention may have a role as a bridge to definitive treatment of noncompressible truncal haemorrahge.

Prehospital aortic blood flow control techniques for non-compressible traumatic hemorrhage

Non-compressible hemorrhage in the junctional areas and torso could be life-threatening and its prehospital control remains extremely challenging. The aim of this review was to compare commonly used techniques for the control of non-compressible hemorrhage in prehospital settings, and thereby provide evidence for further improvements in emergency care of traumatic injuries. Three techniques were reviewed including external aortic compression (EAC), abdominal aortic junctional tourniquet (AAJT), and resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA). In prehospital settings, all three techniques have demonstrated clinical effectiveness for the control of severe hemorrhage. EAC is a cost- and equipment-free, easy-to-teach, and immediately available technique. In contrast, AAJT and REBOA are expensive and require detailed instructions or systematic training. Compared with EAC, AAJT and REBOA have greater potentials in the management of traumatic hemorrhage. AAJT can be used not only in the junctional areas but also in pelvic and bilateral lower limb injuries. However, both AAJT and REBOA should be used for a limited time (less than 1 hour) due to possible consequences of ischemia and reperfusion. Compared with EAC and AAJT, REBOA is invasive, requiring femoral arterial access and intravascular guidance and inflation. Mortality from non-compressible hemorrhage could be reduced through the prehospital application of aortic blood flow control techniques. EAC should be considered as the first-line choice for many non-compressible injuries that cannot be managed with conventional junctional tourniquets. In comparison, AAJT or REBOA is recommended for better control of the aorta blood flow in prehospital settings. Although these three techniques each have advantages, their use in trauma is not widespread. Future studies are warranted to provide more data about their safety and efficacy.

Prehospital External Aortic Compression for Temporizing Exsanguinating Sub-Diaphragmatic Hemorrhage - A Promising Technique, but with Challenges: Four Illustrative Cases, Including Two Survivors

External aortic compression (EAC) has long been used to control exsanguinating post-partum hemorrhage, but it has only recently been described in the prehospital trauma setting. This paper reports four cases where manual EAC was used during transport to manage life-threatening bleeding, twice from stab wounds, once from ruptured ectopic pregnancy, and once from severe lower-limb trauma. It showed that EAC has life-saving potential in the prehospital setting, but that safety and efficacy during transport requires the use of a hands-free compression device, such as an aortic tourniquet.

Mechanical and surgical interventions for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Primary postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is commonly defined as bleeding from the genital tract of 500 mL or more within 24 hours of birth. It is one of the most common causes of maternal mortality worldwide and causes significant physical and psychological morbidity. An earlier Cochrane Review considering any treatments for the management of primary PPH, has been split into separate reviews. This review considers treatment with mechanical and surgical interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical and surgical interventions used for the treatment of primary PPH.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (26 July 2019) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of mechanical/surgical methods for the treatment of primary PPH compared with standard care or another mechanical/surgical method. Interventions could include uterine packing, intrauterine balloon insertion, artery ligation/embolism, or uterine compression (either with sutures or manually). We included studies reported in abstract form if there was sufficient information to permit risk of bias assessment. Trials using a cluster-RCT design were eligible for inclusion, but quasi-RCTs or cross-over studies were not.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, independently extracted data and checked data for accuracy. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine small trials (944 women) conducted in Pakistan, Turkey, Thailand, Egypt (four trials), Saudi Arabia, Benin and Mali. Overall, included trials were at an unclear risk of bias. Due to substantial differences between the studies, it was not possible to combine any trials in meta-analysis. Many of this review's important outcomes were not reported. GRADE assessments ranged from very low to low, with the majority of outcome results rated as very low certainty. Downgrading decisions were mainly based on study design limitations and imprecision; one study was also downgraded for indirectness. External uterine compression versus normal care (1 trial, 64 women) Very low-certainty evidence means that we are unclear about the effect on blood transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 2.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 8.23). Uterine arterial embolisation versus surgical devascularisation plus B-Lynch (1 trial, 23 women) The available evidence for hysterectomy to control bleeding (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.15 to 3.57) is unclear due to very low-certainty evidence. The available evidence for intervention side effects is also unclear because the evidence was very low certainty (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.08 to 15.41). Intrauterine Tamponade Studies included various methods of intrauterine tamponade: the commercial Bakri balloon, a fluid-filled condom-loaded latex catheter ('condom catheter'), an air-filled latex balloon-loaded catheter ('latex balloon catheter'), or traditional packing with gauze. Balloon tamponade versus normal care (2 trials, 356 women) One study(116 women) used the condom catheter. This study found that it may increase blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.00; 113 women), very low-certainty evidence. For other outcomes the results are unclear and graded as very low-certainty evidence: mortality due to bleeding (RR 6.21, 95% CI 0.77 to 49.98); hysterectomy to control bleeding (RR 4.14, 95% CI 0.48 to 35.93); total blood transfusion (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.51); and side effects. A second study of 240 women used the latex balloon catheter together with cervical cerclage. Very low-certainty evidence means we are unclear about the effect on hysterectomy (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.74) and additional surgical interventions to control bleeding (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.12). Bakri balloon tamponade versus haemostatic square suturing of the uterus (1 trial, 13 women) In this small trial there was no mortality due to bleeding, serious maternal morbidity or side effects of the intervention, and the results are unclear for blood transfusion (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.36; very low certainty). Bakri balloon tamponade may reduce mean 'intraoperative' blood loss (mean difference (MD) -426 mL, 95% CI -631.28 to -220.72), very low-certainty evidence. Comparison of intrauterine tamponade methods (3 trials, 328 women) One study (66 women) compared the Bakri balloon and the condom catheter, but it was uncertain whether the Bakri balloon reduces the risk of hysterectomy to control bleeding due to very low-certainty evidence (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.25). Very low-certainty evidence also means we are unclear about the results for the risk of blood transfusion (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.06). A second study (50 women) compared Bakri balloon, with and without a traction stitch. Very low-certainty evidence means we are unclear about the results for hysterectomy to control bleeding (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.97). A third study (212 women) compared the condom catheter to gauze packing and found that it may reduce fever (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.59), but again the evidence was very low certainty. Modified B-Lynch compression suture versus standard B-Lynch compression suture (1 trial, 160 women) Low-certainty evidence suggests that a modified B-Lynch compression suture may reduce the risk of hysterectomy to control bleeding (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.99) and postoperative blood loss (MD -244.00 mL, 95% CI -295.25 to -192.75).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence from RCTs to determine the relative effectiveness and safety of mechanical and surgical interventions for treating primary PPH. High-quality randomised trials are urgently needed, and new emergency consent pathways should facilitate recruitment. The finding that intrauterine tamponade may increase total blood loss > 1000 mL suggests that introducing condom-balloon tamponade into low-resource settings on its own without multi-system quality improvement does not reduce PPH deaths or morbidity. The suggestion that modified B-Lynch suture may be superior to the original requires further research before the revised technique is adopted. In high-resource settings, uterine artery embolisation has become popular as the equipment and skills become more widely available. However, there is little randomised trial evidence regarding efficacy and this requires further research. We urge new trial authors to adopt PPH core outcomes to facilitate consistency between primary studies and subsequent meta-analysis.

Proximal External Aortic Compression for Life-Threatening Abdominal-Pelvic and Junctional Hemorrhage: An Ultrasonographic Study in Adult Volunteers

Introduction: Following life-threatening junctional trauma, the goal is to limit blood loss while expediting transfer to operative rescue. Unfortunately, life-threatening abdominal-pelvic or junctional hemorrhage is often not amenable to direct compression and few temporizing strategies are available beyond hemostatic dressings, hypotensive resuscitation, and balanced transfusion. Objectives: In this study, we evaluated proximal external aortic compression to arrest blood flow in healthy adult men. Methods: This was a simulation trial of proximal external aortic compression, for life-threatening abdominal-pelvic and junctional hemorrhage, in a convenience sample of healthy adult male volunteers. The primary end points were cessation of femoral blood flow as assessed by pulse wave Doppler ultrasound at the right femoral artery, caudal to the inguinal ligament. Secondary end points were discomfort and negative sequelae. Results: Aortic blood flow was arrested in 12 volunteers. Median time to blood flow cessation was 12.5 seconds. Median reported discomfort was 5 out of 10. No complications or negative sequelae were reported. Conclusion: This trial suggests that it may be reasonable to attempt temporization of major abdominal-pelvic and junctional hemorrhage using bimanual proximal external aortic compression. In the absence of immediate alternatives for this dangerous and vexing injury pattern, there appear to be few downsides to prehospital proximal external aortic compression while concomitantly expediting definite care.

Traumatic intra-abdominal hemorrhage control: has current technology tipped the balance toward a role for prehospital intervention?

BACKGROUND

The identification and control of traumatic hemorrhage from the torso remains a major challenge and carries a significant mortality despite the reduction of transfer times. This review examines the current technologies that are available for abdominal hemorrhage control within the prehospital setting and evaluates their effectiveness.

METHODS

A systematic search of online databases was undertaken. Where appropriate, evidence was highlighted using the Oxford levels of clinical evidence. The primary outcome assessed was mortality, and secondary outcomes included blood loss and complications associated with each technique.

RESULTS

Of 89 studies, 34 met the inclusion criteria, of which 29 were preclinical in vivo trials and 5 were clinical. Techniques were subdivided into mechanical compression, endovascular control, and energy-based hemostatic devices. Gas insufflation and manual pressure techniques had no associated mortalities. There was one mortality with high intensity focused ultrasound. The intra-abdominal infiltration of foam treatment had 64% and the resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta had 74% mortality risk reduction. In the majority of cases, morbidity and blood loss associated with each interventional procedure were less than their respective controls.

CONCLUSION

Mortality from traumatic intra-abdominal hemorrhage could be reduced through early intervention at the scene by emerging technology. Manual pressure or the resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta techniques have demonstrated clinical effectiveness for the control of major vessel bleeding, although complications need to be carefully considered before advocating clinical use. At present, fast transfer to the trauma center remains paramount.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review, level IV.

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.

Postpartum misoprostol for preventing maternal mortality and morbidity

BACKGROUND

The primary objective of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) prevention and treatment is to reduce maternal deaths. Misoprostol has the major public health advantage over injectable medication that it can more easily be distributed at community level. Because misoprostol might have adverse effects unrelated to blood loss which might impact on mortality or severe morbidity, it is important to continue surveillance of all relevant evidence from randomised trials. This is particularly important as misoprostol is being introduced on a large scale for PPH prevention in low-income countries, and is commonly used for PPH treatment in well-resourced settings as well.

OBJECTIVES

To review maternal deaths and severe morbidity in all randomised trials of misoprostol for prevention or treatment of PPH.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 January 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials including pregnant women who received misoprostol in the postpartum period, versus placebo/no treatment or other uterotonics for prevention or treatment of PPH, and reporting on maternal death, severe morbidity or pyrexia.We planned to include cluster- and quasi-randomised trials in the analysis, as a very large number of women will be needed to obtain robust estimates of maternal mortality but we did not identify any for this version of the review. In future updates of this review we will include trials reported only as abstracts if sufficient information is available from the abstract or from the authors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 studies (59,216 women) and excluded 34 studies.There was no statistically significant difference in maternal mortality for misoprostol compared with control groups overall (31 studies; 11/19,715 versus 4/20,076 deaths; risk ratio (RR) 2.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 5.28); or for the trials of misoprostol versus placebo: 10 studies, 6/4626 versus 1/4707 ; RR 2.70; 95% CI 0.72 to 10.11; or for misoprostol versus other uterotonics: 21 studies, 5/15,089 versus 3/15,369 (19/100,000); RR 1.54; 95% CI 0.40 to 5.92. All 11 deaths in the misoprostol arms occurred in studies of misoprostol ≥ 600 µg.There was a statistically significant difference in the composite outcome 'maternal death or severe morbidity' for the comparison of misoprostol versus placebo (12 studies; average RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.81; Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0%) but not for the comparison of misoprostol versus other uterotonics (17 studies; average RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.52; Tau² = 1.81, I² = 69%). When we excluded hyperpyrexia from the composite outcome in exploratory analyses, there was no significant difference in either of these comparisons.Pyrexia > 38°C was increased with misoprostol compared with controls (56 studies, 2776/25,647 (10.8%) versus 614/26,800 (2.3%); average RR 3.97, 95% CI 3.13 to 5.04; Tau² = 0.47, I² = 80%). The effect was greater for trials using misoprostol 600 µg or more (27 studies; 2197/17,864 (12.3%) versus 422/18,161 (2.3%); average RR 4.64; 95% CI 3.33 to 6.46; Tau² = 0.51, I² = 86%) than for those using misoprostol 400 µg or less (31 studies; 525/6751 (7.8%) versus 185/7668 (2.4%); average RR 3.07; 95% CI 2.25 to 4.18; Tau² = 0.29, I² = 58%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Misoprostol does not appear to increase or reduce severe morbidity (excluding hyperpyrexia) when used to prevent or treat PPH. Misoprostol did not increase or decrease maternal mortality. However, misoprostol is associated with an increased risk of pyrexia, particularly in dosages of 600 µg or more. Given that misoprostol is used prophylactically in very large numbers of healthy women, the greatest emphasis should be placed on limiting adverse effects. In this context, the findings of this review support the use of the lowest effective dose. As for any new medication being used on a large scale, continued vigilance for adverse effects is essential and there is a need for large randomised trials to further elucidate both the relative effectiveness and the risks of various dosages of misoprostol.