Prognostic accuracy of clinical markers of postpartum bleeding in predicting maternal mortality or severe morbidity: a WHO individual participant data meta-analysis

Ioannis Gallos, Caitlin R Williams, Malcolm J Price, Aurelio Tobias, Adam Devall, John Allotey, Fernando Althabe, Jenny A Cresswell, Jill Durocher, A Metin Gülmezoglu, Christian Haslinger, Rodolfo C Pacagnella, Loïc Sentilhes, Soha Sobhy, Idnan Yunas, Jonathan J Deeks, Arri Coomarasamy, Olufemi T Oladapo
{"title":"Prognostic accuracy of clinical markers of postpartum bleeding in predicting maternal mortality or severe morbidity: a WHO individual participant data meta-analysis","authors":"Ioannis Gallos, Caitlin R Williams, Malcolm J Price, Aurelio Tobias, Adam Devall, John Allotey, Fernando Althabe, Jenny A Cresswell, Jill Durocher, A Metin Gülmezoglu, Christian Haslinger, Rodolfo C Pacagnella, Loïc Sentilhes, Soha Sobhy, Idnan Yunas, Jonathan J Deeks, Arri Coomarasamy, Olufemi T Oladapo","doi":"10.1016/s0140-6736(25)01639-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Background</h3>Postpartum haemorrhage (excessive bleeding after birth) is a leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide. However, there is no global consensus on which clinical markers best define excessive bleeding or reliably predict adverse maternal outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic accuracy of clinical markers of postpartum bleeding in predicting maternal mortality or severe morbidity.<h3>Methods</h3>In this individual participant data meta-analysis, eligible datasets were identified through a global call for data issued by WHO and systematic searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and WHO trial registries (from database inception to Nov 6, 2024). Studies were eligible if they included at least 200 participants with objectively measured blood loss or other clinical markers of haemodynamic instability, and reported at least one clinical outcome of interest. Individual participant data were requested for all eligible studies. For each dataset, we computed the prognostic accuracy of each clinical marker to predict a composite outcome of maternal mortality or severe morbidity (blood transfusion, surgical interventions, or admission to intensive care unit). Five clinical markers were assessed: measured blood loss, pulse rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and shock index. Results were meta-analysed through two-level mixed-effects logistic regression models, with a bivariate normal model used to generate summary accuracy estimates. Clinical marker and threshold selections were informed by a WHO expert consensus process, which placed emphasis on maximising prognostic sensitivity (preferably &gt;80%) over prognostic specificity (preferably ≥50%). This meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251034918).<h3>Findings</h3>We identified 33 potentially eligible datasets and successfully obtained and analysed full data for 12 datasets, comprising 312 151 women. At the conventional threshold of 500 mL, measured blood loss had a summary prognostic sensitivity of 75·7% (95% CI 60·3–86·4) and specificity of 81·4% (95% CI 70·7–88·8) for predicting the composite outcome. The preferred sensitivity threshold was reached at 300 mL (83·9% [95% CI 72·8–91·1]), although at the expense of reduced specificity (54·8% [95% CI 38·0–70·5]). Prognostic performance improved with a decision rule that combined the use of either blood loss thresholds less than 500 mL (≥300 mL to ≥450 mL) and any abnormal haemodynamic sign (pulse rate &gt;100 beats per min, systolic blood pressure &lt;100 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure &lt;60 mm Hg, or shock index &gt;1·0) or 500 mL or more of blood loss, with sensitivities ranging from 86·9% to 87·9% and specificities from 66·6% to 76·1%.<h3>Interpretation</h3>Measured blood loss below the conventional threshold, combined with abnormal haemodynamic signs, accurately predicts women at risk of death or life-threatening complications from postpartum bleeding and could support earlier postpartum haemorrhage diagnosis and treatment.<h3>Funding</h3>The Gates Foundation and UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction.","PeriodicalId":22898,"journal":{"name":"The Lancet","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Lancet","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(25)01639-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Postpartum haemorrhage (excessive bleeding after birth) is a leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide. However, there is no global consensus on which clinical markers best define excessive bleeding or reliably predict adverse maternal outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic accuracy of clinical markers of postpartum bleeding in predicting maternal mortality or severe morbidity.

Methods

In this individual participant data meta-analysis, eligible datasets were identified through a global call for data issued by WHO and systematic searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and WHO trial registries (from database inception to Nov 6, 2024). Studies were eligible if they included at least 200 participants with objectively measured blood loss or other clinical markers of haemodynamic instability, and reported at least one clinical outcome of interest. Individual participant data were requested for all eligible studies. For each dataset, we computed the prognostic accuracy of each clinical marker to predict a composite outcome of maternal mortality or severe morbidity (blood transfusion, surgical interventions, or admission to intensive care unit). Five clinical markers were assessed: measured blood loss, pulse rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and shock index. Results were meta-analysed through two-level mixed-effects logistic regression models, with a bivariate normal model used to generate summary accuracy estimates. Clinical marker and threshold selections were informed by a WHO expert consensus process, which placed emphasis on maximising prognostic sensitivity (preferably >80%) over prognostic specificity (preferably ≥50%). This meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251034918).

Findings

We identified 33 potentially eligible datasets and successfully obtained and analysed full data for 12 datasets, comprising 312 151 women. At the conventional threshold of 500 mL, measured blood loss had a summary prognostic sensitivity of 75·7% (95% CI 60·3–86·4) and specificity of 81·4% (95% CI 70·7–88·8) for predicting the composite outcome. The preferred sensitivity threshold was reached at 300 mL (83·9% [95% CI 72·8–91·1]), although at the expense of reduced specificity (54·8% [95% CI 38·0–70·5]). Prognostic performance improved with a decision rule that combined the use of either blood loss thresholds less than 500 mL (≥300 mL to ≥450 mL) and any abnormal haemodynamic sign (pulse rate >100 beats per min, systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure <60 mm Hg, or shock index >1·0) or 500 mL or more of blood loss, with sensitivities ranging from 86·9% to 87·9% and specificities from 66·6% to 76·1%.

Interpretation

Measured blood loss below the conventional threshold, combined with abnormal haemodynamic signs, accurately predicts women at risk of death or life-threatening complications from postpartum bleeding and could support earlier postpartum haemorrhage diagnosis and treatment.

Funding

The Gates Foundation and UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction.
产后出血临床标志物预测产妇死亡率或严重发病率的预后准确性:世卫组织个体参与者数据荟萃分析
产后出血(出生后大出血)是全世界孕产妇死亡和发病的主要原因。然而,对于哪些临床指标能最好地定义出血过多或可靠地预测产妇不良结局,目前尚无全球共识。本研究的目的是评估产后出血的临床指标在预测产妇死亡率或严重发病率方面的预后准确性。方法在这项个体参与者数据荟萃分析中,通过对世界卫生组织发布的数据的全球呼吁,以及对PubMed、MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane图书馆和世界卫生组织试验注册库(从数据库建立到2024年11月6日)的系统检索,确定了符合条件的数据集。如果研究包括至少200名参与者,他们有客观测量的失血量或其他血流动力学不稳定的临床标志物,并且报告了至少一个感兴趣的临床结果,则研究是合格的。所有符合条件的研究都需要个体参与者的资料。对于每个数据集,我们计算了每个临床标记的预后准确性,以预测孕产妇死亡率或严重发病率(输血、手术干预或入住重症监护病房)的综合结果。评估五项临床指标:测量失血量、脉搏率、收缩压、舒张压和休克指数。通过双水平混合效应逻辑回归模型对结果进行meta分析,使用双变量正态模型生成汇总精度估计。临床标志物和阈值的选择是由世卫组织专家共识程序决定的,该程序强调最大限度地提高预后敏感性(最好是80%),而不是预后特异性(最好是≥50%)。该荟萃分析在PROSPERO注册(CRD420251034918)。研究结果:我们确定了33个潜在的符合条件的数据集,并成功获得并分析了12个数据集的完整数据,其中包括312 151名女性。在常规阈值为500 mL时,测量的失血量预测复合结局的总预后敏感性为75.7% (95% CI为60.3 - 86.4),特异性为81.4% (95% CI为70.7 - 88.8)。首选敏感性阈值在300 mL时达到(83.9% [95% CI 72.8 - 91.1]),但以降低特异性为代价(54.8% [95% CI 38.0 - 70·5])。预后性能改善的决策规则,结合使用失血阈值小于500毫升(≥300毫升至≥450毫升)和任何异常血流动力学征象(脉搏率100次/分,收缩压100毫米汞柱,舒张压60毫米汞柱,或休克指数1.0)或500毫升或更多的失血,敏感性范围为86.9%至87.9%,特异性范围为66.6%至76.1%。解释:测量到的低于常规阈值的失血量,结合异常的血流动力学体征,可以准确预测妇女的死亡风险或产后出血引起的危及生命的并发症,并可以支持早期产后出血的诊断和治疗。盖茨基金会和开发计划署/人口基金/儿童基金会/卫生组织/世界银行人类生殖研究、发展和研究训练特别方案。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信