Kellie Frances J, Wandabwa Julius N, Mousa Hatem A, Weeks Andrew D
Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, Department of Women's and Children's Health, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Busitema University, Mbale, Uganda.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jul 1;7(7):CD013663. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013663.
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.
To determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical and surgical interventions used for the treatment of primary PPH.
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.
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.
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.
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.
原发性产后出血(PPH)通常定义为分娩后24小时内生殖道出血500毫升及以上。它是全球孕产妇死亡的最常见原因之一,会导致严重的身体和心理疾病。早期一项关于原发性PPH管理的任何治疗方法的Cochrane系统评价已被拆分为单独的评价。本评价考虑机械和手术干预治疗。
确定用于治疗原发性PPH的机械和手术干预的有效性和安全性。
我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩试验注册库、ClinicalTrials.gov、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)(2019年7月26日)以及检索到的研究的参考文献列表。
将机械/手术方法治疗原发性PPH与标准护理或另一种机械/手术方法进行比较的随机对照试验(RCT)。干预措施可包括子宫填塞、宫腔球囊置入、动脉结扎/栓塞或子宫压迫(缝合或手动压迫)。如果有足够信息允许进行偏倚风险评估,我们纳入以摘要形式报告的研究。采用整群RCT设计的试验符合纳入条件,但准RCT或交叉研究不符合。
两位评价作者独立评估研究的纳入情况和偏倚风险,独立提取数据并检查数据准确性。我们使用GRADE评估证据的确定性。
我们纳入了在巴基斯坦、土耳其、泰国、埃及(四项试验)、沙特阿拉伯、贝宁和马里进行的九项小型试验(944名女性)。总体而言,纳入的试验偏倚风险不明确。由于研究之间存在实质性差异,无法在荟萃分析中合并任何试验。本评价的许多重要结果未报告。GRADE评估范围从极低到低,大多数结果的确定性被评为极低。降级决定主要基于研究设计的局限性和不精确性;一项研究也因间接性而降级。
子宫外压迫与常规护理(1项试验,64名女性)
极低确定性证据意味着我们不清楚其对输血的影响(风险比(RR)2.33,95%置信区间(CI)0.66至8.23)。
子宫动脉栓塞与手术去血管化加B-Lynch缝合(1项试验,23名女性)
由于证据确定性极低,子宫切除术控制出血方面的现有证据(RR 0.73,95%CI 0.15至3.57)不明确。干预副作用的现有证据也不明确,因为证据确定性极低(RR 1.09;95%CI 0.08至15.41)。
宫腔填塞
商用Bakri球囊、充满液体的避孕套乳胶导管(“避孕套导管”)、充满空气的乳胶球囊导管(“乳胶球囊导管”)或传统纱布填塞。
球囊填塞与常规护理(2项试验,356名女性)
一项研究(116名女性)使用了避孕套导管。该研究发现,它可能会增加1000毫升及以上的失血量(RR 1.52,95%CI 1.15至2.00;113名女性),证据确定性极低。对于其他结果,结果不明确,证据确定性被评为极低:出血导致的死亡率(RR 6.21,95%CI 0.77至49.98);子宫切除术控制出血(RR 4.14,95%CI 0.48至35.93);总输血量(RR 1.49,95%CI 0.88至2.51);以及副作用。第二项对240名女性的研究将乳胶球囊导管与宫颈环扎术一起使用。极低确定性证据意味着我们不清楚其对子宫切除术的影响(RR 0.14,95%CI 0.01至2.74)以及控制出血的额外手术干预(RR 0.20,95%CI 0.01至4.12)。
Bakri球囊填塞与子宫止血方缝合(1项试验,13名女性)
在这项小型试验中,没有出血导致的死亡、严重的孕产妇发病或干预的副作用,输血结果不明确(RR 0.57,95%CI 0.14至2.36;确定性极低)。Bakri球囊填塞可能会减少平均“术中”失血量(平均差(MD)-426毫升,95%CI -631.28至-220.72),证据确定性极低。
宫腔填塞方法比较(3项试验,328名女性)
一项研究(66名女性)比较了Bakri球囊和避孕套导管,但由于证据确定性极低,不确定Bakri球囊是否能降低子宫切除术控制出血的风险(RR 0.50,95%CI 0.05至5.25)。极低确定性证据也意味着我们不清楚输血风险的结果(RR 0.97,95%CI 0.88至1.06)。第二项研究(50名女性)比较了带和不带牵引缝线的Bakri球囊。极低确定性证据意味着我们不清楚子宫切除术控制出血的结果(RR 0.20,95%CI 0.01至3.97)。第三项研究(212名女性)将避孕套导管与纱布填塞进行比较,发现它可能会降低发热率(RR 0.47,95%CI 0.38至0.59),但证据确定性仍然极低。
改良B-Lynch压迫缝合与标准B-Lynch压迫缝合(1项试验,160名女性)
低确定性证据表明,改良B-Lynch压迫缝合可能会降低子宫切除术控制出血的风险(RR 0.33,95%CI 0.11至0.99)以及术后失血量(MD -244.00毫升,95%CI -295.25至-192.75)。
目前随机对照试验中没有足够证据来确定机械和手术干预治疗原发性PPH的相对有效性和安全性。迫切需要高质量的随机试验,新的紧急同意途径应便于招募。宫腔填塞可能会增加总失血量>1000毫升这一发现表明,在资源匮乏地区单独引入避孕套球囊填塞而没有多系统质量改进,并不能降低PPH的死亡率或发病率。改良B-Lynch缝合可能优于原始缝合这一建议在采用修订技术之前需要进一步研究。在资源丰富地区,随着设备和技术的更广泛应用,子宫动脉栓塞已变得流行。然而,关于其疗效的随机试验证据很少,这需要进一步研究。我们敦促新的试验作者采用PPH核心结局,以促进原始研究与后续荟萃分析之间的一致性。