Prophylactic Radiologic Interventions for Postpartum Hemorrhage Control in Women With Placenta Accreta Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 8.3 2区 材料科学 Q1 MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-02 DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005662
Lisanne R Bonsen, Kosma Sleijpen, Joris Hendriks, Thijs A J Urlings, Olaf M Dekkers, Saskia le Cessie, Marc van de Velde, Pema Gurung, Thomas van den Akker, Johanna G van der Bom, Dacia D C A Henriquez
{"title":"Prophylactic Radiologic Interventions for Postpartum Hemorrhage Control in Women With Placenta Accreta Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Lisanne R Bonsen, Kosma Sleijpen, Joris Hendriks, Thijs A J Urlings, Olaf M Dekkers, Saskia le Cessie, Marc van de Velde, Pema Gurung, Thomas van den Akker, Johanna G van der Bom, Dacia D C A Henriquez","doi":"10.1097/AOG.0000000000005662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To quantify the association between prophylactic radiologic interventions and perioperative blood loss during cesarean delivery in women with placenta accreta spectrum disorder through a systematic review and network meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>On January 3, 2023, a literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. We also checked ClinicalTrials.gov retrospectively. Prophylactic radiologic interventions to reduce bleeding during cesarean delivery involved preoperative placement of balloon catheters, distal (internal or common iliac arteries) or proximal (abdominal aorta), or sheaths (uterine arteries). The primary outcome was volume of blood loss; secondary outcomes were the number of red blood cell units transfused and adverse events. Studies including women who received an emergency cesarean delivery were excluded.</p><p><strong>Methods of study selection: </strong>Two authors independently screened citations for relevance, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of individual studies with the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool.</p><p><strong>Tabultation, integration, and results: </strong>From a total of 1,332 screened studies, 50 were included in the final analysis, comprising 5,962 women. These studies consisted of two randomized controlled trials and 48 observational studies. Thirty studies compared distal balloon occlusion with a control group, with a mean difference in blood loss of -406 mL (95% CI, -645 to -167). Fourteen studies compared proximal balloon occlusion with a control group, with a mean difference of -1,041 mL (95% CI, -1,371 to -710). Sensitivity analysis excluding studies with serious or critical risk of bias provided similar results. Five studies compared uterine artery embolization with a control group, all with serious or critical risk of bias; the mean difference was -936 mL (95% CI, -1,522 to -350). Reported information on adverse events was limited.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the predominance of observational studies in the included literature warrants caution in interpreting the findings of this meta-analysis, our findings suggest that prophylactic placement of balloon catheters or sheaths before planned cesarean delivery in women with placenta accreta spectrum disorder may, in some cases, substantially reduce perioperative blood loss. Further study is required to quantify the efficacy according to various severities of placenta accreta spectrum disorder and the associated safety of these radiologic interventions.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO, CRD42022320922.</p>","PeriodicalId":5,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11321610/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000005662","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To quantify the association between prophylactic radiologic interventions and perioperative blood loss during cesarean delivery in women with placenta accreta spectrum disorder through a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Data sources: On January 3, 2023, a literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. We also checked ClinicalTrials.gov retrospectively. Prophylactic radiologic interventions to reduce bleeding during cesarean delivery involved preoperative placement of balloon catheters, distal (internal or common iliac arteries) or proximal (abdominal aorta), or sheaths (uterine arteries). The primary outcome was volume of blood loss; secondary outcomes were the number of red blood cell units transfused and adverse events. Studies including women who received an emergency cesarean delivery were excluded.

Methods of study selection: Two authors independently screened citations for relevance, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of individual studies with the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool.

Tabultation, integration, and results: From a total of 1,332 screened studies, 50 were included in the final analysis, comprising 5,962 women. These studies consisted of two randomized controlled trials and 48 observational studies. Thirty studies compared distal balloon occlusion with a control group, with a mean difference in blood loss of -406 mL (95% CI, -645 to -167). Fourteen studies compared proximal balloon occlusion with a control group, with a mean difference of -1,041 mL (95% CI, -1,371 to -710). Sensitivity analysis excluding studies with serious or critical risk of bias provided similar results. Five studies compared uterine artery embolization with a control group, all with serious or critical risk of bias; the mean difference was -936 mL (95% CI, -1,522 to -350). Reported information on adverse events was limited.

Conclusion: Although the predominance of observational studies in the included literature warrants caution in interpreting the findings of this meta-analysis, our findings suggest that prophylactic placement of balloon catheters or sheaths before planned cesarean delivery in women with placenta accreta spectrum disorder may, in some cases, substantially reduce perioperative blood loss. Further study is required to quantify the efficacy according to various severities of placenta accreta spectrum disorder and the associated safety of these radiologic interventions.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, CRD42022320922.

对胎盘早剥谱系障碍产妇进行预防性放射干预以控制产后出血:系统回顾与元分析》。
目的:通过系统综述和网络荟萃分析,量化预防性放射干预与胎盘早剥谱系障碍产妇剖宫产围手术期失血量之间的关系:2023 年 1 月 3 日,我们在 PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library 和 Web of Science 上进行了文献检索。我们还回顾性地检查了 ClinicalTrials.gov。减少剖宫产出血的预防性放射干预包括术前放置球囊导管、远端(髂内动脉或髂总动脉)或近端(腹主动脉)或鞘管(子宫动脉)。主要结果是失血量;次要结果是输红细胞单位数和不良事件。研究筛选方法:两位作者独立筛选相关引文、提取数据,并使用 Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions 工具评估各项研究的偏倚风险:在筛选出的 1332 项研究中,有 50 项被纳入最终分析,其中包括 5962 名女性。这些研究包括两项随机对照试验和 48 项观察性研究。30 项研究将远端球囊闭塞与对照组进行了比较,平均失血量差异为-406 毫升(95% CI,-645 至-167)。14 项研究将近端球囊闭塞与对照组进行了比较,平均差异为-1,041 毫升(95% CI,-1,371 至-710)。敏感性分析排除了存在严重或临界偏倚风险的研究,得出了相似的结果。五项研究将子宫动脉栓塞与对照组进行了比较,所有研究均存在严重或临界偏倚风险;平均差异为-936毫升(95% CI,-1522至-350)。报告的不良事件信息有限:尽管纳入的文献中以观察性研究为主,因此在解释这项荟萃分析的结果时需要谨慎,但我们的研究结果表明,在某些情况下,胎盘早剥谱系障碍产妇在计划剖宫产前预防性置入球囊导管或鞘管可能会大大减少围手术期失血量。需要进一步研究根据胎盘早剥频谱紊乱的不同严重程度量化疗效以及这些放射干预的相关安全性:系统综述注册:PROCROPERO,CRD42022320922。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 工程技术-材料科学:综合
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
6.30%
发文量
4978
审稿时长
1.8 months
期刊介绍: ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces is a leading interdisciplinary journal that brings together chemists, engineers, physicists, and biologists to explore the development and utilization of newly-discovered materials and interfacial processes for specific applications. Our journal has experienced remarkable growth since its establishment in 2009, both in terms of the number of articles published and the impact of the research showcased. We are proud to foster a truly global community, with the majority of published articles originating from outside the United States, reflecting the rapid growth of applied research worldwide.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信