Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Undiagnosed abnormal postpartum blood loss: Incidence and risk factors

  • Aude Girault ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    aude_girault@hotmail.com

    Affiliation INSERM UMR 1153, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Paediatric Epidemiology Research Team (Epopé), Centre for Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS), DHU Risks in pregnancy, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France

  • Catherine Deneux-Tharaux,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation INSERM UMR 1153, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Paediatric Epidemiology Research Team (Epopé), Centre for Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS), DHU Risks in pregnancy, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France

  • Loic Sentilhes,

    Roles Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Software, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Angers University Hospital, France

  • Françoise Maillard,

    Roles Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Resources, Software

    Affiliation INSERM UMR 1153, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Paediatric Epidemiology Research Team (Epopé), Centre for Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS), DHU Risks in pregnancy, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France

  • François Goffinet

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations INSERM UMR 1153, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Paediatric Epidemiology Research Team (Epopé), Centre for Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS), DHU Risks in pregnancy, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France, Port-Royal Maternity Unit, Department of Obstetrics Paris, Cochin Broca Hôtel-Dieu hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France

Undiagnosed abnormal postpartum blood loss: Incidence and risk factors

  • Aude Girault, 
  • Catherine Deneux-Tharaux, 
  • Loic Sentilhes, 
  • Françoise Maillard, 
  • François Goffinet
PLOS
x

Abstract

Background

We aimed to evaluate the incidence of undiagnosed abnormal postpartum blood loss (UPPBL) after vaginal delivery, identify the risk factors and compare them to those of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH).

Method

The study population included women who participated in a randomized controlled trial of women with singleton low-risk pregnancy who delivered vaginally after 35 weeks’ gestation (n = 3917). Clinical PPH was defined as postpartum blood loss ≥ 500 mL measured by using a collector bag and UPPBL was defined by a peripartum change in haemoglobin ≥ 2 g/dL in the absence of clinical PPH. Risk factors were assessed by multivariate multinomial logistic regression.

Results

The incidence of UPPBL and PPH was 11.2% and 11.0% of vaginal deliveries, respectively. The median peripartum change in Hb level was comparable between UPPBL and PPH groups (2.5 g/dL interquartile range [2.2–3.0] and 2.4 g/dL IQR [1.5–3.3]). Risk factors specifically associated with UPPBL were Asian geographical origin (adjusted OR [aOR] 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2–4.2; p = 0.009), previous caesarean section (aOR 3.4, 2.1–5.5; p<0.001) and episiotomy (aOR 2.6, 1.8–3.6; p<0.001). Risk factors for both UPPBL and PPH were primiparity, long duration of labour, instrumental delivery and retained placenta.

Conclusion

Undiagnosed abnormal postpartum blood loss is frequent among women giving birth vaginally and has specific risk factors. The clinical importance of this entity needs further confirmation, and the benefit of systematic or targeted prevention strategies needs to be assessed.

Introduction

Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is defined by blood loss ≥ 500 mL within 24 hours after delivery[1]. It complicates 5% to 15% of deliveries and remains a major component of severe maternal morbidity and maternal mortality[14]. However, a few reports have suggested that women may present peripartum blood count changes reflecting abnormal blood loss, ≥ 500 mL, although no PPH has been diagnosed clinically, with reported incidences as high as 13% [5,6].

This undiagnosed abnormal postpartum blood loss (UPPBL) has potential adverse consequences that could justify investigating their incidence and risk factors. Indeed, even though UPPBL is probably not a cause of severe maternal morbidity, it may have short- and long-term adverse effects on maternal and child health because of the induced and most often uncorrected postpartum anaemia [710]. Women with untreated postpartum anaemia, even moderate, experience more breathlessness, heart palpitations, fatigue and infections [11] and are at increased risk of maternal stress, anxiety, emotional instability, postpartum depression and reduced cognitive performance [710] than women without anaemia, up to 9 months after delivery. In addition to these consequences on maternal health, postpartum anaemia also affects mother–child interactions, compromises the mother–child bond and is associated with impaired infant development at 9 months of age [10].

A better knowledge of the epidemiology of UPPBL could allow for estimating its clinical significance and eventually investigating its causes and consequences. Our main hypothesis is that women with UPPBL have delayed excessive bleeding that is not easily assessed during the rigorous monitoring period in the labour ward or during the first 24 hours of routine surveillance. A central issue is to determine whether UPPBL risk factors are specific to UPPBL or are shared with PPH.

The TRAction of the CORd (TRACOR) trial [12], which tested the impact of controlled cord traction on the incidence of PPH, offers the opportunity to study UPPBL. Indeed, in this trial, the management and monitoring of the third stage of labour was standardized, including the placement of a collector bag after delivery, which allows for standardizing and optimizing the measurement of blood loss in the immediate postpartum period [1315], and blood count performed before and after delivery for all women. This protocol allowed for developing a clear and exhaustive definition of both PPH and UPPBL.

The objective of this study was to estimate the incidence of UPPBL, identify its risk factors and compare them to those of PPH in women delivering vaginally.

Materials and methods

The study population included women who participated in the TRACOR trial [12] (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01044082). This multicentre randomized controlled trial with two parallel groups was conducted in five French university hospitals between 2010 and 2011 and showed no impact of controlled cord traction on the incidence of PPH, defined by blood loss ≥ 500 mL measured by using a graduated collector bag. The two groups did not differ in secondary outcomes, including mean peripartum changes in haemoglobin (Hb) level and haematocrit (Ht) value. Except for controlled cord traction, the active management of the third stage of labour and of PPH if it occurred was standardized in the five study centers, following national and international guidelines [1,15,16], and included: a 5-UI oxytocin intravenous injection after shoulder delivery, clamping and cutting of the cord within two minutes of birth; placement of a graduated (100 mL graduation) collector bag (MVF Merivaara France) just after birth, left in place until the birth attendant judged that bleeding had stopped and that there was no reason to monitor further, and always at least for 15 minutes; and manual removal of the placenta at 30 minutes after birth if not expelled. If PPH occurred, the management strategy in the 5 study centers was standardized following the national guidelines.

The trial population consisted of women > 18 years old who vaginally delivered singletons after 35 weeks’ gestation (n = 4058). Women with coagulation disorders, placenta prævia, in utero foetal death, and multiple gestation and those who did not understand French were excluded. For our study, we excluded women who did not have a collector bag placed immediately after delivery (n = 45) and did not have blood samples before delivery or at day 2 post-delivery (n = 98), because the diagnosis of PPH or UPPBL (see definitions below) was not possible for these women. Our study sample consisted of 3917 women.

The principal outcome was the occurrence of PPH or UPPBL. PPH was defined by blood loss ≥ 500 mL measured at the removal of the collector bag and/or any second-line treatment for PPH (second-line uterotonic agent, transfusion, intrauterine tamponade, uterine artery embolization, surgery). As previously proposed [6,17,18], UPPBL was defined as a change in peripartum Hb level of at least 2 g/dL without any clinical diagnosis of PPH calculated as the difference between the last Hb measurement during pregnancy and at day 2 postpartum. Prepartum Hb was measured between week 33 of gestation and before arrival at the labour ward for 91.1% of women, at arrival at the labour ward for 2.1%, and between weeks 20 and 33 of gestation for 6.8%. A sensitivity analysis involved data for women who had a blood test within the two weeks before delivery (n = 1226).

In a secondary analysis, we tested three other definitions of UPPBL used in previously published studies (all definitions selected only women with no PPH): peripartum Hb level change of at least 2 g/dL associated with postpartum Hb level ≤ 10 g/dL [16,19]; peripartum change in Ht value ≥ 5% calculated as the difference between Ht value before delivery and at day 2 postpartum [13,20]; and blood loss ≥ 500 mL calculated with a formula proposed to quantify perioperative blood loss: ((peripartum Ht change) x total blood volume (TBV))/ 0.35, where TBV (mL) = weight (in kg) x 65 x 1.4 [21,22].

The following data were collected for each woman: the pre-existing characteristics geographical origin, age, body mass index (BMI), parity (primipara, multipara with no previous caesarean section, multipara with previous caesarean section), history of PPH, pre-existing chronic disease (≥ 1 of high blood pressure, diabetes, autoimmune disease), and smoking before pregnancy; the pregnancy characteristics smoking during pregnancy, polyhydramnios, weight gain during pregnancy and hypertensive disorder during pregnancy (gestational hypertension or preeclampsia); and the labour and delivery characteristics gestational age at delivery, induction of labour, total dose of oxytocin received during labour, epidural anaesthesia, hyperthermia during labour, duration of labour, duration of expulsive effort, mode of delivery (spontaneous, forceps, vacuum or spatula), type of perineal trauma (none, episiotomy with or without first- and second-degree tear, first- and second-degree tear without episiotomy, third- and fourth- degree tear), retained placenta, birth weight and maternity unit.

These characteristics were tested as risk factors for UPPBL and PPH by univariate analysis, using Pearson’s χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test when appropriate for nominal variables, and Student’s t test for continuous variables. A multivariate multinomial logistic regression was then performed to calculate adjusted ORs (aORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with the dependent variable in three classes (PPH, UPPBL, no UPPBL or PPH). Variables included in multivariable regression analysis were chosen from the literature and from the results of univariate analysis. After having tested that the quantitative variables had a linear relationship with the dependent variable, all variables except total dose of oxytocin received during labour were entered in the multivariate model as continuous variables. The total dose of oxytocin received during labour was included as a categorical variable by quartiles. Two clinically relevant interactions were tested: duration of labour and oxytocin dose, instrumental delivery and episiotomy. Secondary analyses involved analysis by the other definitions for UPPBL with the same strategy.

Data for 150 women (3.9%) were not included in the multivariate analysis because of missing data for at least one selected factor, so this analysis represented data for 96.1% of our initial study population. This population was comparable to the analysed population for all characteristics (S1 Table).

P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Given our sample size, with a two-sided significance level of 5%, the available power was at least 70% to show OR of at least 2.0 for any studied characteristic. Analyses involved use of STATA v12.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Results

Among the 3917 women included in our analysis, 439 had UPPBL (11.2%, 95% CI 10.2–12.2) and 430 had PPH (401 had blood loss ≥ 500 mL in the bag, 29 received second-line uterotonics for PPH although the measured blood loss was at that moment <500 mL) (11.0%, 95% CI 10.0–12.0). The women with and without cord traction were equally distributed in the UPPBL group (respectively 49.3% and 50.7%). The median peripartum change in Hb level was comparable for the UPPBL and PPH groups (respectively 2.5 g/dL IQR [2.2–3.0] and 2.4 g/dL IQR [1.5–3.3], respectively) but not the control group (0.5 g/dL IQR [0–1.1]) (Table 1). The rate of women with postpartum anemia (Hb level ≤ 10 g/dL) was comparable for the UPPBL and PPH groups (respectively 56.5% and 58.1%, Pearson p = 0.4) but lower in the control group (9.7%). The median blood loss at bag removal was increased in the PPH group, as expected, given the definition criteria for the three groups (Table 1). The median duration between delivery and removal of collector bag differed between UPPBL, PPH and control groups (30 min IQR [22–42], 37 min IQR [28–49], and 23 min IQR [15–33] min, respectively, (p<0.001, nonparametric k-sample test). The characteristics of women, labour and delivery are in Table 2 and those associated with UPPBL and PPH on univariate analysis are in Table 3.

thumbnail
Table 1. Prepartum, postpartum and median peripartum change in haemoglobin (Hb) level, number of women with postpartum anemia and blood loss in women with undiagnosed abnormal postpartum blood loss (UPPBL), postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) and controls.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190845.t001

thumbnail
Table 3. Univariate analysis of characteristics of women, labour and delivery associated with UPPBL, clinical PPH, and controls.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190845.t003

Risk factors specifically associated with UPPBL on multivariate analysis were Asian geographic origin (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2–4.2), previous caesarean section (aOR 3.4, 95% CI 2.1–5.5) and episiotomy (aOR 2.6, 95% CI 1.8–3.6) (Table 4). Smoking during pregnancy was associated with reduced risk of UPPBL (aOR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5–0.9). Risk factors for both UPPBL and PPH were primiparity, long duration of labour, instrumental delivery by forceps or spatula, and retained placenta. Risk factors for PPH alone were history of PPH, increased gestational age at delivery, oxytocin dose, long duration of expulsive efforts and increased weight of the newborn.

thumbnail
Table 4. Multivariate analysisa of risk factors for UPPBL and PPH (n = 3917).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190845.t004

When restricting the definition of UPPBL to women who also had clear postpartum anaemia (Hb level ≤ 10 g/dL), we found an incidence of 6.5% (248/3917) and the same risk factors as those found in the main analysis (S2 Table). The analysis with the other definitions for UPPBL showed an UPPBL incidence of 16.1% for the definition based on peripartum change in Ht ≥ 5% and 19.1% for the definition based on calculated blood loss. The risk factors identified were comparable to those found in the main analysis (S2 Table).

The sensitivity analysis performed among women who had a blood test within the two weeks before delivery (n = 1226, 203 women with UPPBL (16.6%), 148 women with PPH (12.1%) and 875 controls) also found similar risk factors for UPPBL and PPH (S3 Table). The median peripartum change in Hb level in women who had a blood test within the 2 weeks before delivery was comparable for the UPPBL and PPH groups (respectively 2.5 g/dL IQR [2.2–3.0] and 2.7 g/dL IQR [1.5–3.6], respectively).

Discussion

We found that UPPBL occurred in about 1 in 10 vaginal deliveries and had specific risk factors not associated with PPH: Asian geographical origin, previous caesarean section and episiotomy.

In this large prospective trial, all women had the same active management of the third stage of labour in line with international guidelines [1,15] and a blood count before delivery and at day 2 postpartum, which allowed for a homogenous and exhaustive identification of both PPH and UPPBL. The monitoring of the immediate postpartum period was rigorous because of the trial but corresponds to standard care.

Although our sample originated from a randomized trial, it included a large population of pregnant women with few exclusion criteria; indeed, the distribution of the main characteristics of women and deliveries (age, BMI, parity, previous caesarean section, type of delivery and episiotomy) was similar in our study population and in the French general population of parturients [23]. In addition, based on the literature, the 11.0% incidence of PPH is within the expected range when a collector bag is used [13,24].

One limitation of our study is the variability of the Hb measurement. Indeed, women could have their prepartum and postpartum blood tests performed in two different laboratories; the amount of fluid replacement after delivery, which can be a cause of hemodilution, was not standardized; and the time between the prepartum blood test and delivery was not constant because it is impossible to predict. However, the variability in the measurement of Hb level change was reduced by standardizing the timing of the postpartum blood test, performed at day 2, which reflects well the blood loss of the first 24 hours postpartum. In addition, the sensitivity analysis among women with prepartum Hb level measured within the two weeks before delivery provided similar results, which supports the validity of our results.

Defining UPPBL is a challenge. From previous studies that used peripartum change in Hb level or Ht value to define PPH, we decided on a ≥ 2g/dL peripartum change in Hb level to define UPPBL. These studies suggest that a ≥ 2 g/dL change in Hb level corresponds to ≥ 500 mL blood loss defining PPH [2,6,13,17,18,20] and that severe PPH (blood loss ≥ 1000 mL) may be defined by a ≥ 10% peripartum change in Ht value. We found different incidences of UPPBL depending on the definition, which probably corresponds to the degree of severity, although the risk factors for UPPBL according to these various definitions were comparable. The relevance of the 2-g/dL threshold for change in Hb level to define UPPBL is further supported by our finding of a median change in peripartum Hb level of 2.4 g/dL IQR [1.5–3.3,] with corresponding median blood loss of 600 mL IQR [500–800] at bag removal, for women with PPH.

Only two retrospective studies of UPPBL were found in literature [5,6], both are of small sample size and have methodological issues, but they report incidences similar to what we found with our main definition.

We were not able to directly evaluate medium- and long-term adverse consequences of UPPBL. Previous studies have shown adverse consequences of untreated postpartum anaemia, even if moderate (Hb ≤ 11.5 g/dL), on maternal and child health, as well as on mother–infant interactions up to 9 months after delivery [9,25]. In our study, more than half of the women with UPPBL (56.5% of UPPBL, 6.5% of deliveries) also had postpartum anaemia defined by Hb level ≤ 10 g/dL at day 2 postpartum. When we restricted the analysis to these women, the risk factors identified were comparable to those found with the main analysis.

The potential adverse consequences of UPPBL justify the attempt to characterize this entity as well as the circumstances and risk factors associated with it. Because all women were monitored with a collector bag in our study, our principal hypothesis explaining that some abnormal blood losses are undiagnosed is that some women have persistent bleeding, probably of a moderate and perhaps discontinuous flow, after the close monitoring period. Indeed, there are discrepancies between the classical definition of PPH [1,4], which refers to blood loss over the first 24 hours after delivery, and the clinical reality of the diagnosis established during the 2-hour close monitoring period in the delivery room, especially when the blood loss is measured in a collector bag that is usually removed at 15 to 30 min post-delivery. After the collector bag has been removed, surveillance may be less effective because the medical team has concluded that the blood loss is not excessive. This persistent bleeding could be caused by perineal laceration, uterine hypotonia or coagulopathy. This hypothesis is consistent both with the risk factors we identified and the fact that the collector bag was removed earlier in women with UPPBL, reflecting the birth attendant’s judgement of physiological bleeding. A blood suffusion of low abundance not requiring (in the view of the caregivers) any additional suture or further medical intervention is not uncommon after episiotomy and may explain UPPBL if persistent.

Our analysis also shows that the risk of UPPBL was increased twofold for women of Asian geographical origin, but their risk of PPH did not differ from that for women with other geographical backgrounds. An association between the Asian geographical origin and PPH was previously described in studies with PPH defined by biological criteria or based on International Classification of Diseases 9 codes [20,26,27]. We suspect that these types of definitions select a combination of PPH and UPPBL cases, which explains the association found. Indeed, other studies with PPH defined clinically did not report such an association [28]. The reason why women of Asian geographical origin may be more exposed to moderate but prolonged excessive postpartum bleeding needs further investigation.

Relying on the clinical diagnosis of postpartum anaemia symptoms is probably insufficient because those signs are often scarce or absent, except for severe cases. The biological diagnosis is also challenging given the current trend of early postpartum discharge, before day 2; moreover, a systematic blood count after delivery is not recommended by professional societies because some studies reported increased transfusion rate and low benefit/cost ratio in the short-term; however, the long-term cost/benefit balance of this systematic screening, considering the consequences for both the mother and the child, has not been evaluated [29,30]. Alternatively, postpartum screening could be targeted to women with risk factors for UPPBL. Considering the high frequency of UPPBL in our study and its potential adverse consequences, another option might be systematic iron supplementation in all women after delivery.

In our study, UPPBL appears to be frequent and have specific risk factors. A first implication of these findings for clinical practice is to emphasize the need for careful and prolonged surveillance of blood loss in the postpartum period, even after discharge from the labour ward and in particular with risk factors. Another implication is the need to define the optimal strategy to diagnose UPPBL. Further studies are needed to confirm our results and then evaluate the short- and long-term impacts of systematic or targeted screening for and treatment of postpartum anaemia.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Characteristics of women included and not included in the multivariate analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190845.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Multivariate analysis of association of women's characteristics with different definitions of UPPBL.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190845.s002

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Sensitivity analysis, multivariate analysis of risk factors for UPPBL and PPH among women who had a blood test within two weeks before delivery, (n = 1226).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190845.s003

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

To the members of the TRACOR study group:

Angers University hospital: Cécile Rouillard, Isabel Ribeiro, Annaïck Boutin, Laëtitia Rault; Lille University hospital: Emmanuel Closset, Isabelle Luttringer, Laurence Brachelet, Marie Françoise Hernout, Marie-Laurence Outtier; Caen University hospital: Delphine Vardon, Céline Fossey, Claire Bouet, Magali Germaine and Sami Chaalan; St Vincent de Paul Cochin University hospital: Jacques Lepercq, Marie Souteyrand, Peggy Plévy, Adeline Rideau, Sophie Decormeille and Muriel Margotonne; Port-Royal Cochin University hospital: Anne Sophie Albignat, Lucile Caubit and Ahmed Abdelli; Data monitoring committee, Clinical research unit, URC Paris Centre, CIC Cochin-Necker, Paris: Jean-Marc treluyer, Raphael Serreau, Laurence Lecomte, Florence Artiguebieille, Séverine Lion, Zineb Kacher and Victoria Buth.

References

  1. 1. Tunçalp O, Souza JP, Gülmezoglu M. New WHO recommendations on prevention and treatment of postpartum hemorrhage. Int J Gynaecol Obstet Off Organ Int Fed Gynaecol Obstet 2013;123:254–6. pmid:24054054
  2. 2. Dupont C, Rudigoz R-C, Cortet M, Touzet S, Colin C, Rabilloud M, et al. [Frequency, causes and risk factors of postpartum haemorrhage: A population-based study in 106 French maternity units]. J Gynécologie Obstétrique Biol Reprod 2014;43:244–53. pmid:23790963
  3. 3. Zwart JJ, Richters JM, Ory F, de Vries JIP, Bloemenkamp KWM, van Roosmalen J. Severe maternal morbidity during pregnancy, delivery and puerperium in the Netherlands: a nationwide population-based study of 371,000 pregnancies. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2008;115:842–50. pmid:18485162
  4. 4. Bateman BT, Berman MF, Riley LE, Leffert LR. The epidemiology of postpartum hemorrhage in a large, nationwide sample of deliveries. Anesth Analg 2010;110:1368–73. pmid:20237047
  5. 5. Descargues G, Pitette P, Gravier A, Roman H, Lemoine JP, Marpeau L. [Missed diagnosis of postpartum hemorrhage]. J Gynécologie Obstétrique Biol Reprod 2001;30:590–600.
  6. 6. Charafeddine P O, Bony E, Dreyfus J.F, Zraik-Ayoubi F and Ayoubi J.M. Advantage of systematic blood cell count 2 days post-delivery for the diagnosis of postpartum maternal anemia. Br J Med Med Res 2013:3(4): 1144–53.
  7. 7. Beard JL, Hendricks MK, Perez EM, Murray-Kolb LE, Berg A, Vernon-Feagans L, et al. Maternal iron deficiency anemia affects postpartum emotions and cognition. J Nutr 2005;135:267–72. pmid:15671224
  8. 8. Corwin EJ, Murray-Kolb LE, Beard JL. Low hemoglobin level is a risk factor for postpartum depression. J Nutr 2003;133:4139–42. pmid:14652362
  9. 9. Murray-Kolb LE, Beard JL. Iron deficiency and child and maternal health. Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89:946S – 950S. pmid:19158210
  10. 10. Perez EM, Hendricks MK, Beard JL, Murray-Kolb LE, Berg A, Tomlinson M, et al. Mother-infant interactions and infant development are altered by maternal iron deficiency anemia. J Nutr 2005;135:850–5. pmid:15795446
  11. 11. Milman N. Postpartum anemia I: definition, prevalence, causes, and consequences. Ann Hematol 2011;90:1247–53. pmid:21710167
  12. 12. Deneux-Tharaux C, Sentilhes L, Maillard F, Closset E, Vardon D, Lepercq J, et al. Effect of routine controlled cord traction as part of the active management of the third stage of labour on postpartum haemorrhage: multicentre randomised controlled trial (TRACOR). BMJ 2013;346:f1541. pmid:23538918
  13. 13. Tourné G, Collet F, Lasnier P, Seffert P. [Usefulness of a collecting bag for the diagnosis of post-partum hemorrhage]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2004;33:229–34.
  14. 14. Zhang W-H, Deneux-Tharaux C, Brocklehurst P, Juszczak E, Joslin M, Alexander S, et al. Effect of a collector bag for measurement of postpartum blood loss after vaginal delivery: cluster randomised trial in 13 European countries. BMJ 2010;340:c293. pmid:20123835
  15. 15. Toledo P, McCarthy RJ, Hewlett BJ, Fitzgerald PC, Wong CA. The accuracy of blood loss estimation after simulated vaginal delivery. Anesth Analg 2007;105:1736–40, table of contents. pmid:18042876
  16. 16. Wagner KS, Ronsmans C, Thomas SL, Calvert C, Adler A, Ganaba R, et al. Women who experience obstetric haemorrhage are at higher risk of anaemia, in both rich and poor countries. Trop Med Int Health TM IH 2012;17:9–22. pmid:21955293
  17. 17. Deneux-Tharaux C, Dupont C, Colin C, Rabilloud M, Touzet S, Lansac J, et al. Multifaceted intervention to decrease the rate of severe postpartum haemorrhage: the PITHAGORE6 cluster-randomised controlled trial. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2010;117:1278–87. pmid:20573150
  18. 18. Dupont C, Touzet S, Colin C, Deneux-Tharaux C, Rabilloud M, Clement HJ, et al. Incidence and management of postpartum haemorrhage following the dissemination of guidelines in a network of 16 maternity units in France. Int J Obstet Anesth 2009;18:320–7. pmid:19733052
  19. 19. Bergmann RL, Richter R, Bergmann KE, Dudenhausen JW. Prevalence and risk factors for early postpartum anemia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010;150:126–31. pmid:20303210
  20. 20. Combs CA, Murphy EL, Laros RK. Factors associated with postpartum hemorrhage with vaginal birth. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:69–76. pmid:1984230
  21. 21. Rosencher N, Kerkkamp HEM, Macheras G, Munuera LM, Menichella G, Barton DM, et al. Orthopedic Surgery Transfusion Hemoglobin European Overview (OSTHEO) study: blood management in elective knee and hip arthroplasty in Europe. Transfusion (Paris) 2003;43:459–69.
  22. 22. Stafford I, Dildy GA, Clark SL, Belfort MA. Visually estimated and calculated blood loss in vaginal and cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199:519.e1–7. pmid:18639209
  23. 23. Blondel B, Lelong N, Kermarrec M, Goffinet F, National Coordination Group of the National Perinatal Surveys. Trends in perinatal health in France from 1995 to 2010. Results from the French National Perinatal Surveys. J Gynécologie Obstétrique Biol Reprod 2012;41:e1–15. pmid:22613118
  24. 24. Sosa CG, Althabe F, Belizán JM, Buekens P. Risk factors for postpartum hemorrhage in vaginal deliveries in a Latin-American population. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:1313–9. pmid:19461428
  25. 25. Perez P, Salmi LR, Folléa G, Schmit JL, de Barbeyrac B, Sudre P, et al. Determinants of transfusion-associated bacterial contamination: results of the French BACTHEM Case-Control Study. Transfusion (Paris) 2001;41:862–72.
  26. 26. Bryant AS, Worjoloh A, Caughey AB, Washington AE. Racial/ethnic disparities in obstetric outcomes and care: prevalence and determinants. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;202:335–43. pmid:20060513
  27. 27. Guendelman S, Thornton D, Gould J, Hosang N. Obstetric complications during labor and delivery: assessing ethnic differences in California. Womens Health Issues Off Publ Jacobs Inst Womens Health 2006;16:189–97. pmid:16920523
  28. 28. Bais JMJ, Eskes M, Pel M, Bonsel GJ, Bleker OP. Postpartum haemorrhage in nulliparous women: incidence and risk factors in low and high risk women. A Dutch population-based cohort study on standard (> or = 500 ml) and severe (> or = 1000 ml) postpartum haemorrhage. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004;115:166–72. pmid:15262350
  29. 29. Steele HB, Goetzl L. The practical utility of routine postpartum hemoglobin assessment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;210:576.e1–6. pmid:24583198
  30. 30. Dar S, Vardi IS, Holcberg G, Reuveni H, Yerushalmi R, Katz M, et al. Do we need routine complete blood count following vaginal delivery? Int J Fertil Womens Med 2006;51:270–3. pmid:17566570