Early vs. delayed intrauterine balloon tamponade: no difference in severe PPH

Written By :  Niveditha Subramani
Medically Reviewed By :  Dr. Kamal Kant Kohli
Published On 2023-08-09 14:30 GMT   |   Update On 2023-08-10 07:12 GMT
Advertisement

Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is a rising threat that causes severe vaginal bleeding after childbirth. It's a serious condition that is the leading cause of maternal death. Several studies remain uncertain about the appropriate use of intrauterine balloon devices in postpartum hemorrhage after vaginal delivery refractory to first-line uterotonics.

A new study in American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, compared the effect of intrauterine balloon tamponade used in combination with second-line uterotonics vs intrauterine balloon tamponade used after the failure of second-line uterotonic treatment on the rate of severe postpartum hemorrhage in women.

The study found that early use of intrauterine balloon tamponade wasn’t much effective and did not reduce the incidence of severe postpartum hemorrhage compared with its use after the failure of second-line uterotonic treatment and before recourse to invasive procedures.

The study was a multicenter, randomized, controlled, parallel-group, nonblinded trial was conducted at 18 hospitals and enrolled 403 women who had just given birth vaginally at 35 to 42 weeks of gestation. The inclusion criteria were a postpartum hemorrhage refractory to first-line uterotonics (oxytocin) and requiring a second-line uterotonic treatment with sulprostone (E1 prostaglandin).

In the study group, the sulprostone infusion was combined with intrauterine tamponade by an ebb balloon performed within 15 minutes of randomization. In the control group, the sulprostone infusion was started alone within 15 minutes of randomization, and if bleeding persisted 30 minutes after the start of sulprostone infusion, intrauterine tamponade using the ebb balloon was performed. In both groups, if the bleeding persisted 30 minutes after the insertion of the balloon, an emergency radiological or surgical invasive procedure was performed.

The key findings of the study are

• At the eighth interim analysis, the independent data monitoring committee concluded that the incidence of the primary outcome did not differ between the 2 groups and stopped inclusions.

• After 11 women were excluded because they met an exclusion criterion or withdrew their consent, 199 and 193 women remained in the study and control groups, respectively, for the intention-to-treat analysis.

• The women’s baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Peripartum hematocrit level change, which was needed for the calculation of the primary outcome, was missing for 4 women in the study group and 2 women in the control group.

• The primary outcome occurred in 131 of 195 women (67.2%) in the study group and 142 of 191 women (74.3%) in the control group (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.79–1.03).

• The groups did not differ substantially for rates of calculated peripartum blood loss pf ≥1500 mL, any transfusion, invasive procedure, and admission to an intensive care unit.

• Endometritis occurred in 5 women (2.7%) in the study group and none in the control group (P=.06).

Researchers concluded that “The early use of intrauterine balloon tamponade did not reduce the incidence of severe postpartum hemorrhage compared with its use after the failure of second-line uterotonic treatment and before recourse to invasive procedures.”

Reference: Patrick Rozenberg, MD, Loïc Sentilhes, MD, PhD et al; Efficacy of early intrauterine balloon tamponade for immediate postpartum hemorrhage after vaginal delivery: a randomized clinical trial May 18, 2023, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2023.05.014.

Tags:    
Article Source : American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.

NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.

Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Similar News