ArticleDer Anaesthesist2017
[Haemostatic management in postpartum haemorrhage : Nationwide survey in Germany].
Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn order to ensure evidence-based haemostatic management of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH, blood loss >500 ml) consistent with guidelines appropriate structural conditions must be fulfilled regardless of different levels (1-3) in perinatal care. The aim of the survey was to identify differences in haemostatic management in PPH under consideration of the different levels of perinatal care in Germany. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn electronic questionnaire assessing the structural and therapeutic preconditions for haemostatic management was sent to 533 anaesthesiology departments serving obstetric units.
resultsA total of 156 (29 %) questionnaires returned from hospitals of all levels were analysed. PPH occur in all and increase with higher level hospitals (level 1 <5 PPH/year vs. 3 >30 PPH/year). The percentage of PPH requiring red blood cell (RBC) transfusion amounts to <25 % (all levels). A bleeding history (35 %, all levels), laboratory coagulation tests (29 %, all levels) as well as viscoelastic point-of-care coagulation tests (42 %, mainly level 3) are limited in their availability. Blood loss is usually estimated (99 %, all levels), not measured. Tranexamic acid (>80 %, all levels), fibrinogen (>60 %, all levels) and fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (30 %, level 2a) are first line therapeutics. In level 2b and 3 FFP is a second line therapeutic. RBC transfusion is indicated at haemoglobin <5-7 g/dl (57-69 %, all levels), while 15-29 % in level 3 did not base their decision to transfuse RBC on haemoglobin only.
conclusionsGuideline-consistent haemostatic management of PPH is provided in almost all hospitals independent of the perinatal care level. Deviances from guidelines (measuring blood loss, bleeding history of the patient) affect all levels of perinatal care in Germany.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28492980What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.