Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34560846›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2021

The RPOC long axis is a simple indicator for predicting the need of invasive strategies for secondary postpartum hemorrhage in either post-abortion or post-partum women: a retrospective case control study.

Mariya Kobayashi, Satoshi Nakagawa, Yoko Kawanishi, Tatsuo Masuda, Takahide Maenaka, Aska Toda, Tatsuya Miyake, Kosuke Hiramatsu, Ai Miyoshi, Kazuya Mimura and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mariya KobayashiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Satoshi NakagawaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan. s.nakagawa@gyne.med.osaka-u.ac.jp.
Yoko KawanishiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Tatsuo MasudaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Takahide MaenakaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Aska TodaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Tatsuya MiyakeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Kosuke HiramatsuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Ai MiyoshiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Kazuya MimuraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Toshihiro KimuraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Masayuki EndoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Tadashi KimuraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Osaka University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe retained products of conception (RPOC) and related conditions (RPOC-ARC) are the main cause of secondary postpartum hemorrhage (sPPH), but there is no clear consensus for their management. The purpose of this study was to characterize those RPOC-ARC that require invasive treatment and those that could be managed more conservatively.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 96 cases of RPOC-ARC that occurred after miscarriage, abortion, or delivery at a gestational age between 12 and 42 completed weeks, that were managed within our institution from May 2015 to August 2020. We reviewed the associations between the occurrence of sPPH requiring invasive treatment with clinical factors such as the maternal background and the characteristics of the lesions.

resultsThe range of gestational age at delivery in our study was 12-21 weeks in 61 cases, 22-36 in 5, and 37 or later in 30. Among them, nine cases required invasive procedures for treatment. The onset of sPPH was within one month of delivery in all but two cases, with a median of 24 days (range 9-47). We found significant differences between requirements for invasive versus non-invasive strategies according to gestational age at delivery, assisted reproductive technology (ART) pregnancy, amount of blood loss at delivery, and the long axis of the RPOC-ARC lesion (p = 0.028, p = 0.009, p = 0.004, and p = 0.002, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that only the long axis of the lesion showed a significant difference (p = 0.029). The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve for predicting the need for invasive strategies using the long axis of the lesion showed that with a cutoff of 4.4 cm, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) was 87.5, 90.0, 43.8, and 98.7%, respectively.

conclusionThe long axis of the RPOC-ARC is a simple indicator for predicting which sPPH will require invasive procedures, which use is rare in cases with lesions less than 4.4 cm or those occurring after the first postpartum month. Conservative management should be considered in such cases.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedAbortion, SpontaneousAdultArteriovenous MalformationsCase-Control StudiesConservative TreatmentFemaleHumansJapanPlacenta, RetainedPostpartum HemorrhagePostpartum PeriodPredictive Value of TestsPregnancyPuerperal DisordersRetrospective StudiesArteriovenous malformation (AVM)Conservative managementPlacental polypRetained placentaRetained products of conception (RPOC)Secondary postpartum hemorrhage (sPPH)

Identifiers

PMID34560846
PMCPMC8464137
OpenAlexW3200199312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.