剖宫产时重量定量失血量的局限性。

IF 0.8 Q4 PEDIATRICS
AJP Reports Pub Date : 2022-02-04 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0041-1742267
Robert L Thurer, Sahar Doctorvaladan, Brendan Carvalho, Andrea T Jelks
{"title":"剖宫产时重量定量失血量的局限性。","authors":"Robert L Thurer,&nbsp;Sahar Doctorvaladan,&nbsp;Brendan Carvalho,&nbsp;Andrea T Jelks","doi":"10.1055/s-0041-1742267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective</b>  This study examined the accuracy, sources of error, and limitations of gravimetric quantification of blood loss (QBL) during cesarean delivery. <b>Study Design</b>  Blood loss determined by assays of the hemoglobin content on surgical sponges and in suction canisters was compared with QBL in 50 parturients. <b>Results</b>  QBL was moderately correlated to the actual blood loss ( <i>r</i>  = 0.564; <i>p</i>  < 0.001). Compared with the reference assay, QBL overestimated blood loss for 44 patients (88%). QBL deviated from the assayed blood loss by more than 250 mL in 34 patients (68%) and by more than 500 mL in 16 cases (32%). Assayed blood loss was more than 1,000 mL in four patients. For three of these patients, QBL was more than 1,000 mL (sensitivity = 75%). QBL was more than 1,000 mL in 12 patients. While three of these had an assayed blood loss of more than 1,000 mL, 9 of the 46 patients with blood losses of less than 1,000 mL by the assay (20%) were incorrectly identified as having postpartum hemorrhage by QBL (false positives). The specificity of quantitative QBL for detection of blood loss more than or equal to 1,000 mL was 80.4%. <b>Conclusion</b>  QBL was only moderately correlated with the reference assay. While overestimation was more common than underestimation, both occurred. Moreover, QBL was particularly inaccurate when substantial bleeding occurred. <b>Key Points</b> QBL is inaccurate in cesarean delivery.QBL deviated from the assay result by more than 500 mL in 32% of cases.QBL sensitivity and specificity for hemorrhage is 75.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19-0.93) and 80.4% (95% CI: 0.69-0.92), respectively.</p>","PeriodicalId":7645,"journal":{"name":"AJP Reports","volume":"12 1","pages":"e36-e40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/9e/83/10-1055-s-0041-1742267.PMC8816625.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Limitations of Gravimetric Quantitative Blood Loss during Cesarean Delivery.\",\"authors\":\"Robert L Thurer,&nbsp;Sahar Doctorvaladan,&nbsp;Brendan Carvalho,&nbsp;Andrea T Jelks\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0041-1742267\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective</b>  This study examined the accuracy, sources of error, and limitations of gravimetric quantification of blood loss (QBL) during cesarean delivery. <b>Study Design</b>  Blood loss determined by assays of the hemoglobin content on surgical sponges and in suction canisters was compared with QBL in 50 parturients. <b>Results</b>  QBL was moderately correlated to the actual blood loss ( <i>r</i>  = 0.564; <i>p</i>  < 0.001). Compared with the reference assay, QBL overestimated blood loss for 44 patients (88%). QBL deviated from the assayed blood loss by more than 250 mL in 34 patients (68%) and by more than 500 mL in 16 cases (32%). Assayed blood loss was more than 1,000 mL in four patients. For three of these patients, QBL was more than 1,000 mL (sensitivity = 75%). QBL was more than 1,000 mL in 12 patients. While three of these had an assayed blood loss of more than 1,000 mL, 9 of the 46 patients with blood losses of less than 1,000 mL by the assay (20%) were incorrectly identified as having postpartum hemorrhage by QBL (false positives). The specificity of quantitative QBL for detection of blood loss more than or equal to 1,000 mL was 80.4%. <b>Conclusion</b>  QBL was only moderately correlated with the reference assay. While overestimation was more common than underestimation, both occurred. Moreover, QBL was particularly inaccurate when substantial bleeding occurred. <b>Key Points</b> QBL is inaccurate in cesarean delivery.QBL deviated from the assay result by more than 500 mL in 32% of cases.QBL sensitivity and specificity for hemorrhage is 75.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19-0.93) and 80.4% (95% CI: 0.69-0.92), respectively.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7645,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AJP Reports\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"e36-e40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/9e/83/10-1055-s-0041-1742267.PMC8816625.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AJP Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1742267\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJP Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1742267","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的探讨剖宫产术中重量法定量失血量(QBL)的准确性、误差来源及局限性。研究设计将50例产妇的失血量与QBL进行比较,方法是测定手术海绵和吸盘中的血红蛋白含量。结果QBL与实际失血量有中度相关性(r = 0.564;p结论QBL与参比法仅存在中度相关性。虽然高估比低估更常见,但两者都有发生。此外,当发生大量出血时,QBL尤其不准确。剖宫产QBL不准确。在32%的病例中,QBL与测定结果偏差超过500 mL。QBL对出血的敏感性和特异性分别为75.0%(95%可信区间[CI]: 0.19-0.93)和80.4% (95% CI: 0.69-0.92)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Limitations of Gravimetric Quantitative Blood Loss during Cesarean Delivery.

Limitations of Gravimetric Quantitative Blood Loss during Cesarean Delivery.

Limitations of Gravimetric Quantitative Blood Loss during Cesarean Delivery.

Limitations of Gravimetric Quantitative Blood Loss during Cesarean Delivery.

Objective  This study examined the accuracy, sources of error, and limitations of gravimetric quantification of blood loss (QBL) during cesarean delivery. Study Design  Blood loss determined by assays of the hemoglobin content on surgical sponges and in suction canisters was compared with QBL in 50 parturients. Results  QBL was moderately correlated to the actual blood loss ( r  = 0.564; p  < 0.001). Compared with the reference assay, QBL overestimated blood loss for 44 patients (88%). QBL deviated from the assayed blood loss by more than 250 mL in 34 patients (68%) and by more than 500 mL in 16 cases (32%). Assayed blood loss was more than 1,000 mL in four patients. For three of these patients, QBL was more than 1,000 mL (sensitivity = 75%). QBL was more than 1,000 mL in 12 patients. While three of these had an assayed blood loss of more than 1,000 mL, 9 of the 46 patients with blood losses of less than 1,000 mL by the assay (20%) were incorrectly identified as having postpartum hemorrhage by QBL (false positives). The specificity of quantitative QBL for detection of blood loss more than or equal to 1,000 mL was 80.4%. Conclusion  QBL was only moderately correlated with the reference assay. While overestimation was more common than underestimation, both occurred. Moreover, QBL was particularly inaccurate when substantial bleeding occurred. Key Points QBL is inaccurate in cesarean delivery.QBL deviated from the assay result by more than 500 mL in 32% of cases.QBL sensitivity and specificity for hemorrhage is 75.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19-0.93) and 80.4% (95% CI: 0.69-0.92), respectively.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
AJP Reports
AJP Reports PEDIATRICS-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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