Open Access

Maternal near misses from two referral hospitals in Uganda: a prospective cohort study on incidence, determinants and prognostic factors

  • Annettee Nakimuli1,
  • Sarah Nakubulwa1,
  • Othman Kakaire1,
  • Michael O. Osinde2,
  • Scovia N. Mbalinda3,
  • Rose C. Nabirye3,
  • Nelson Kakande4 and
  • Dan K. Kaye1Email author
BMC Pregnancy and ChildbirthBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201616:24

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0811-5

Received: 24 December 2014

Accepted: 21 January 2016

Published: 28 January 2016

Abstract

Background

Maternal near misses occur more often than maternal deaths and could enable more comprehensive analysis of risk factors, short-term outcomes and prognostic factors of complications during pregnancy and childbirth. The study determined the incidence, determinants and prognostic factors of severe maternal outcomes (near miss or maternal death) in two referral hospitals in Uganda.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted between March 1, 2013 and February 28, 2014, where cases of severe pregnancy and childbirth complications were included. The clinical conditions included abortion-related complications, obstetric haemorrhage, hypertensive disorders, obstructed labour, infection and pregnancy-specific complications such as febrile illness, anemia and premature rupture of membranes. Near miss cases were defined according to the WHO criteria. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify prognostic factors for severe maternal outcomes.

Results

Of 3100 women with severe obstetric complications, 130 (4.2 %) were maternal deaths and 695 (22.7 %) were near miss cases. Severe pre-eclampsia was the commonest morbidity (incidence ratio (IR) 7.0 %, case-fatality rate (CFR) 2.3 %), followed by postpartum haemorrhage (IR 6.7 %, CFR 7.2 %). Uterine rupture (IR 5.5 %) caused the highest CFR (17.9 %), followed by eclampsia (IR 0.4 %, CFR 17.8 %). The three groups (maternal deaths, near misses and non-life-threatening obstetric complications) differed significantly regarding gravidity and education level. The commonest diagnostic criteria for maternal near miss were admission to the high dependency unit (HDU) or to the intensive care unit (ICU). Thrombocytopenia, circulatory collapse, referral to a more specialized unit, intubation unrelated to anaesthesia, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation were predictive of maternal death (p < 0.05). Gravidity (ARR 1.4, 95 % C1 1.0–1.2); elevated serum lactate levels (ARR 4.5, 95 % CI 2.3–8.7); intubation for conditions unrelated to general anaesthesia (ARR 2.6 (95 % CI 1.2–5.7), cardiovascular collapse (ARR 4.9, 95 % CI 2.5–9.5); transfusion of 4 or more units of blood (ARR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.1–3.1); being an emergency referral (ARR 2.6, 95 % CI 1.2–5.6); and need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ARR 6.1, 95 % CI 3.2–11.7), were prognostic factors.

Conclusions

The analysis of near misses is a useful tool in the investigation of severe maternal morbidity. The prognostic factors for maternal death, if instituted, might save many women with obstetric complications.

Background

For every maternal death, there are about 100 women with severe maternal morbidity from life-threatening obstetric complications, referred to as maternal near misses [1]. A maternal near miss was defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as “a woman who, being close to death, survives a complication that occurred during pregnancy, delivery or up to 42 days after the end of her pregnancy” [2]. Assessment of maternal near misses offers several advantages over assessment of maternal deaths: maternal near misses are commoner than maternal deaths. In addition, review of maternal near misses yields useful information on the pathways that lead to severe morbidity and death [3]. Furthermore, near miss assessment highlights the quality of obstetric care received by those who survive [3]. Prior to the WHO definition, the estimated incidence of maternal near misses varied in different studies, ranging from less than 1 per 1000 births to 82 per 1000 live births [411], partly as a result of different criteria that were used in the definition of maternal near miss. The World Health Organization (WHO) [2] developed a tool which utilize a combination of clinical signs/symptoms, management practices or presence of organ-system dysfunction. Maternal mortality represents the tip of an iceberg. For each death, many other women survive serious complications during pregnancy, delivery, or puerperium that lead to varying degrees of organ-system dysfunction [2]. In many cases, the causes of maternal death are also responsible for the cases of severe morbidity [2]. The WHO tool can therefore evaluate the quality of care provided to women presenting with severe morbidity.

Conceptually, maternal near misses represent a point on the continuum where good health and death are the extreme points [12]. On this continuum, women develop obstetric complications which could be described as uncomplicated, complicated (not life- threatening), severely complicated (life-threatening) or fatal [1315]. Such individuals may recover, become temporarily or permanently disabled, or die [12]. Three approaches were proposed for definition of maternal near miss: using clinical features (signs, symptoms or clinical entities such as eclampsia or uterine rupture) [13]; using management practices (such as admission to intensive care) [11, 12], or using criteria of organ/system dysfunction [11]. The drawback of using the clinical criteria is the definition of the threshold of severity above which morbidity qualifies to be a maternal near miss. This threshold is context-specific as the probability of death depends on both the woman’s vulnerability to succumb and access to prompt quality care [15]. For instance, in studies from Benin [16], Uganda [6, 17], Angola [18, 19] and Burkina Faso [20], postpartum haemorrhage qualified as a maternal near miss only when additional events such as shock, blood transfusion or hysterectomy occurred. For studies that employed the management-based criteria, hysterectomy, admission to intensive care units [21, 22] and prolonged hospitalization [2329] were the commonest procedures used [21, 22]. Indicators of severity of blood loss such as hypovolemia requiring massive blood transfusion, severe anaemia with hypotension (requiring intensive resuscitation) are used to identify maternal near miss. This criterion relies heavily on availability of management facilities.

The rationale of using the organ-system dysfunction-based criteria [11] is that women with such dysfunction are likely to die unless adequate prompt care is provided. For instance, obstetric haemorrhage constitutes a maternal near miss through vascular dysfunction (hypovolemia, shock and circulatory collapse), renal dysfunction (oliguria, acute kidney injury, renal failure), or coagulation dysfunction. The criteria rely heavily on availability of laboratory or other investigation facilities.

While assessment of maternal near miss is increasingly being recognised as potentially more useful that assessment of maternal mortality, severe maternal morbidity that constitutes a near miss is much less easy to define or quantify than maternal death. Studies that assessed maternal near miss using the WHO criteria recommended that future studies should evaluate the burden of maternal near miss using several morbidity and mortality indices [30, 31]. These indices include the maternal near miss incidence ratios, the severe maternal outcome ratio, the case-fatality ratio, the severe maternal morbidity index, and the maternal mortality ratio. To be able to reduce mortality in cases of severe maternal morbidity, there is a need to develop criteria for factors that can easily, uniformly and promptly identify prognostic factors among women with potentially life-threatening obstetric complications. There are few published studies from Africa that have used the WHO for definition of maternal near miss. Yet the WHO has recommended investigating near-misses as a benchmark practice for monitoring the quality of obstetric care and has standardized the criteria for diagnosis [2]. In addition, little is published on the burden of the maternal near miss as evidences by the morbidity severity indicators. The objective was to determine the incidence, characteristics, and prognostic factors for severe maternal outcomes (maternal near miss or maternal death) in two regional referral hospitals in central Uganda.

Methods

Study setting and design

This was a prospective cohort study of women admitted with pregnancy complications admitted between March 1, 2013 and February 28, 2014. The study was conducted at Mulago and Jinja Hospitals. Mulago is Uganda’s national referral hospital and the teaching hospital for Makerere University. The hospital has over 1500 beds, of which over 400 are maternity beds, and conducts over 30,000 deliveries per year. Jinja is a large regional referral hospital that serves about six district hospitals in Central and Eastern Uganda. It has a capacity of over 900 beds of which over 200 are maternity beds.

Data collection

Participants were women with obstetric complications. In the selection criteria, all women with obstetric complications were enrolled into the study, irrespective of the severity of complications. Depending on the severity, the WHO criteria [2] were used to classify survivors of severe obstetric complications into maternal near miss morbidity (according to the criteria recommended by the tool), or those with non-life threatening obstetric complications. Women who consented to participate were recruited in the study. Using an interviewer-administered questionnaire, participant examination, investigations and through review of medical records, data was collected on socio-demographic characteristics, obstetric history, current pregnancy complications and pregnancy outcomes up to the time participants were discharged from hospital or died. Data for women with no or minor obstetric complications was excluded from the analysis.

Sample size estimation

Assuming a power of 80 % at the 95 % significance level and a maximum accepted error of 5 %, and an assumed incidence ratio of obstetric complications of 15 % of all women who deliver, and assuming that 50 % of women with severe obstetric complications would end up as maternal near misses, our sample size was estimated to be 2600 women with obstetric complications of whom about 385 would be women with severe obstetric morbidity (near misses).

Data analysis

We computed descriptive characteristics of maternal near miss, whereby categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages while numerical variables are presented as means or medians (with standard deviations or inter-quartile ranges respectively). In addition, we computed the following indicators: i) The maternal near miss incidence ratios derived as the ratio of near miss per 1000 live births respectively; ii.) The severe maternal outcome ratio as ratio of maternal death plus near misses per 1000 live births; iii) The case-fatality rate for maternal complications determined as the proportion of deaths out of the total number of patients presenting with specific complications, expressed as a percentage; iv) The severe maternal mortality index, derived as maternal deaths divided by (total deaths plus maternal near misses) expressed as a percentage; v) The maternal mortality ratio expressed as all maternal deaths per 100,000 live births as well as the perinatal mortality ratio expressed as all perinatal deaths per 1000 live births.

Furthermore, we analysed risk factors for severe maternal outcomes (maternal near miss or maternal death). Categorical variables were compared with X 2 square or Fisher’s exact test and continuous variables with a two-tailed Student t test. We further analysed the prognostic factors of maternal near miss using log binomial regression analysis, where characteristics of near misses and maternal deaths were compared and adjusted relative risks computed. Variables included in the models were those with a p-value less than or equal to 0.2 or important from a clinical standpoint. After assessing the effects of confounding, interaction and collinearity, the final model contained mainly the laboratory-based and management-based criteria (for diagnosis of a maternal near miss).

Ethical considerations

This research was part of a post-doctoral research project of the first author (DKK) entitled: “Evaluation and surveillance of the impact of maternal and neonatal near-miss morbidity on the health of mothers and infants in Jinja and Mulago hospitals”. Ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained from the Ethics and research committees of Mulago hospital (REC 310-2012), the School of Medicine, Makerere University College of Health Sciences (REC 2012-172) and from Uganda National Council for Science and Technology. Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Makerere University, and from Mulago National Referral Hospital and Jinja Hospital.

Participants gave written informed consent to be enrolled in the study and for their data to be included in the study. Participants included minors (aged 14-17years), as Uganda national guidelines for human subject research [32] allow research on mature and emancipated minors in certain situations such as in pregnancy, with prior approval of an institutional review board. For those with very severe morbidity, consent was obtained retrospectively when they recovered, or consent was obtained from the next of kin to involve the patients’ in the study and to include the patients’ data in our dataset. Participants and their next of kin received assurances that participation was voluntary, and that participants were free to stop participation at any time without their decision affecting the care they were entitled to. All those with complications, and their newborns, were provided free medical care or, where necessary, were offered additional counselling or referred to get other support services not available at the two health facilities. Permission was obtained from the management of the two referral hospital (and from the study participants) to review the participants’ records.

Results

Of the 3100 women with severe obstetric complications, there were 130 maternal deaths (4.2 %), 695 maternal near miss cases (22.7 %) and 2275 (73.4 %) women with non-life threatening obstetric complications (NLTC). In the same period, there were 25,840 live births. Table 1 shows the indicators for maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. The main cause was severe pre-eclampsia, with an incidence of 216 cases (7.0 %), but with a case fatality rate of only 2.3 %. Postpartum haemorrhage was the second main cause of morbidity, contributing to 208 of the 3100 cases (6.7 %) with a case-fatality rate of 7.2 %. However, uterine rupture caused the highest case-fatality of 27 out of 151 (17.9 %), followed by eclampsia (13 out of 171 or 17.8 %).
Table 1

Maternal perinatal and neonatal mortality indicators

Indicators

Ratio

 Maternal near miss ratio

8.42 per 1000 live births.

 Severe maternal outcome ratio

9.99 per 1000 live births

 Maternal mortality ratio (MMR)

503 per 100,000 live births.

 Severe maternal mortality index

15.8 %

Case-specific mortality rates

 

 Puerperal sepsis (9 out of 142)

6.3 %

 Severe obstructed labor (19 out of 564)

3.4 %

Abortion-related deaths

 

  Abortion haemorrhage (5 out of 41)

12.2 %

  Postabortion sepsis (5 of 114)

4.4 %

  Overall (10 out of 155)

6.5 %

Obstetric hemorrhage

 

  Antepartum haemorrhage (5 out of 136)

5.1 %

  Postpartum haemorrhage (15 out of 208)

7.2 %

  Ruptured uterus (27 out of 151)

17.9 %

Hypertensive disorders

 

  Severe preeclampsia (5 out of 216)

2.3 %

  Eclampsia (13 out of 171)

17.8 %

  HELLP Syndrome (2 out of 7)

28.6 %

  Overall (20 out of 394)

5.1 %

Table 2 shows the socio-demographic characteristics and medical history of the participants, stratified by severity of complications. The three groups differed significantly regarding their gravidity, education level and timing of the obstetric complications. Table 3 shows the obstetric complications displayed according to the maternal outcomes. In relation to the childbirth event, the most likely time for a mother to develop severe maternal outcomes was if they occurred in the intrapartum period and continued in the postpartum period (RR 2.5, 95 % CI 1.5–4.2, p-value <0.001); or if complications occurred in the postpartum period (RR 1.8, 95 % CI 1.0–3.0; p-value =0.044).
Table 2

Socio-demographic characteristics and medical history of the participants with obstetric complications displayed according to maternal outcomes

Characteristics

Number (percentage)

Number (percentage)

Number (percentage)

Number (percentage)

p-value (testing difference in groups)

All patients

Maternal deaths

Maternal near miss

NLTC

Age category

    

0.447

 18 years or less

256 (8.3)

11 (8.5)

57 (8.2)

188 (8.3)

 19–24 years

1207 (38.9)

48 (36.9)

251 (36.1)

908 (39.9)

 > = 24 years

1637 (52.8)

71 (54.6)

387 (55.7)

1179 (51.7)

Gravidity

    

<0.001

 1

999 (32.2)

29 (22.3)

184 (26.5)

786 (34.6)

 2–4

1519 (49.0)

62 (47.7)

357 (51.4)

1100 (48.4)

 5 and more

582 (18.8)

39 (30.0)

154 (22.2)

389 (17.1)

Marital status

    

0.249

 Single

519 (16.7)

23 (17.7)

134 (19.3)

362 (15.9)

 Married

2571 (83.0)

107 (82.3)

560 (80.7)

1904 (83.9)

 Separated

10 (0.3)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

10 (0.4)

Employment status

    

0.053

 Formal

304 (9.8)

9 (6.3)

68 (9.8)

228 (10.0)

 Informal

994 (32.1)

39 (30.2)

251 (36.2)

704 (31.0)

 Unemployed

1797 (58.1)

82 (63.6)

376 (56.0)

1343 (59.0)

ΩEducation level

    

<0.001

 None or primary level

1275 (41.4)

72 (56.3)

309 (44.7)

894 (39.5)

 Secondary level

1472 (47.8)

49 (38.2)

309 (44.7)

1114 (49.3)

 Post-secondary (tertiary)

333 (10.8)

7 (5.5)

75 (10.6)

253 (11.2)

Referral status

    

0.121

 Referred

2064 (66.7)

97 (74.6)

453 (65.3)

1514 (66.6)

 Not Referred (self-referrals)

1036 (33.3)

33 (25.4)

242 (34.7)

760 (33.4)

Timing of complications

     

 Occurred before admission

1189 (53.8)

48 (36.9)

324 (46.6)

817 (35.9)

<0.001

 Occurred before arrival and new complications developed

565 (25.6)

46 (27.6)

239 (34.4)

290 (12.8)

 Complications occurred during hospitalized

458 (20.6)

48 (35.4)

132 (18.9)

1168 (51.3)

Admission to the HDU

     

 Yes

541 (17.5)

71 (54.6)

464 (66.8)

6 (0.3)

0.750

 No

2559 (82.5)

59 (45.4)

231 (33.2)

2269 (99.7)

Key: NLTC non-life-threatening obstetric complications

Table 3

Obstetric complications in women displayed according to the maternal outcomes

Characteristics

Number (percentage)

Number (percentage)

Number (percentage)

Number (percentage)

p-value

All patients

Maternal deaths

Maternal near miss

NLTC

N = 3100

N = 130

N = 695

N = 2275

ΩObstetric Haemorrhage

    

<0.001

 Antepartum

136 (4.4)

7 (5.4)

82 (11.8)

47 (2.0)

 Postpartum

230 (7.4)

35 (26.9)

102 (14.7)

93 (4.0)

 Ruptured uterus

154 (5.0)

27 (20.8)

115 (16.5)

12 (0.5)

ΩAbortion-related

    

0.007

 Haemorrhage

41 (1.3)

5 (3.8)

23 (3.3)

13 (0.6)

 Postabortion sepsis

8 (0.3)

0 (0.0)

6 (0.9)

2 (0.1)

 Septic abortion

20 (0.6)

0 (0.0)

10 (1.4)

10 (0.4)

Hypertensive disorders

    

<0.001

 Severe Preeclampsia

218 (7.0)

5 (3.8)

79 (11.4)

134 (6.0)

 Eclampsia

172 (5.5)

13 (10)

132 (19.0)

27 (1.2)

 Chronic Hypertension

4 (0.1)

0 (0.0)

4 (0.6)

0 (0.0)

 HELLP Syndrome

9 (0.3)

2 (1.5)

7 (1.0)

0 (0.0)

 Puerperal sepsis

114 (3.7)

14 (10.8)

82 (11.8)

18 (0.8)

<0.001

 Obstructed labor

564 (18.2)

19 (14.6)

42 (6.0)

503 (22.1)

<0.001

Timing of the complications

    

<0.001

 &aAntepartum

1431 (48.1)

39 (30.0)

263 (37.8)

1129 (49.6)

 Postpartum

156 (5.2)

5 (3.9)

59 (8.5)

92 (4.0)

 Intrapartum

571 (19.2)

20 (15.6)

133 (19.1)

418 (18.4)

 Antepartum and intrapartum

449 (15.1)

34 (26.1)

91 (13.1)

324 (14.2)

 Intrapartum and postpartum

325 (10.9)

27 (20.0)

100 (14.4)

199 (8.8)

 Occurred in all three periods

45 (1.5)

6 (4.6)

49 (7.0)

113 (5.0)

∞Mode of delivery

    

<0.001

 Vaginal delivery

234 (15.5)

23 (28.4)

115 (21.2)

96 (10.8)

 βCaesarean section or laparotomy

1266 (83.8)

56 (69.1)

424 (78.1)

786 (88.7)

 Assisted delivery

10 (0.7)

2 (2.5)

4 (0.7)

4 (0.5)

Ω Multiple responses, so percentage does not add up to 100 %; a Antepartum complications include sickle cell anemia, severe asthmatic attack and severe malaria in pregnancy; & All antenatal and abortion complications included in this group; ∞ Mode of delivery for 1510 women where delivery occurred; β Laparotomy for ruptured uterus

Table 4 shows the diagnostic criteria used for the definition of severe maternal outcomes (maternal near miss cases and maternal deaths) in the 192 women with obstetric complications. The commonest clinical criteria used to diagnose severe maternal outcomes were shock (as indicated by very low blood pressure or circulatory collapse and respiratory rate of more than 40 or less than 6 per minute). The commonest management-based criteria were admission to the HDU or ICU, and prolonged hospitalization longer than 7 days. The commonest laboratory-based criterion was thrombocytopenia (platelet count less than 100,000 per 100 ml). Shock, prolonged comatose state (for up to 12 h) and circulatory collapse pulse were predictive of maternal death (p < 0.05). Referral to a more specialized unit, admission to the HDU or ICU, intubation unrelated to anaesthesia, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation were management-based criteria that were predictive of a maternal death (p < 0.05). Laboratory-based diagnostic criteria were not predictive of maternal death (p > 0.05).
Table 4

Diagnostic criteria used for the definition of severe maternal outcomes (maternal near miss cases and maternal deaths) in the 3100 women with obstetric complications (including abortion-related complications)

Characteristics

All women

Maternal deaths

Maternal near miss

p-value

Number n = 3100

Number (n = 130)

Number (n = 695)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

ΩClinical criteria

    

 Cyanosis

442 (14.3)

69 (53.1)

370 (53.2)

0.973

 Breathing rate more than 40 or less than 6 per minute

521 (16.8)

77 (59.2)

440 (63.3)

0.378

 Oliguria poorly or unresponsive to fluids or diuretics

450 (14.8)

62 (47.7)

386 (55.7)

0.093

 Loss of consciousness for up to 12 h

268 (8.7)

51 (39.2)

213 (30.6)

0.050

 Unconscious (coma) with without recordable pulse

164 (5.3)

43 (33.1)

121 (17.4)

<0.001

 Gasping due to low PaO2 or pulmonary edema

140 (4.5)

23 (17.7)

117 (17.8)

0.811

aShock as indicated by very low blood pressure or circulatory collapse

606 (19.6)

72 (55.4)

533 (76.4)

<0.001

aCoagulation disorders evidenced by low platelets, elevated bleeding or clotting time, or bleeding tendency

362 (11.7)

50 (38.5)

310 (44.6)

0.195

 Cerebrovascular accident

17 (0.6)

5 (3.8)

12 (1.7)

0.118

 Paralysis

13 (0.4)

1 (0.8)

12 (1.6)

0.477

ΩLaboratory-based criteria

    

aBilirubin more than 100 mol/l or more than 6.0 mg/dL

274 (8.8)

44 (33.8)

226 (32.7)

0.792

aThrombocytopenia (less than 100,000)

436 (14.1)

60 (46.2)

373 (53.7)

0.115

 Creatinine more than 300 mol/l or more than 3.5 mg/dL

295 (9.5)

47 (36.2)

245 (35.3)

0.844

 Elevated lactate

272 (8.8)

40 (30.8)

229 (33.0)

0.626

 Low pH less than 7.1

255 (8.3)

31 (24.0)

221 (31.8)

0.071

ΩManagement-based criteria

    

 Oxygen saturation less than 90 % for more than 60 min

499 (16.1)

71 (54.6)

426 (61.3)

0.153

 Use of vasoactive drug such as ephedrine

204 (6.6)

36 (27.7)

168 (24.2)

0.393

 Dialysis for acute kidney failure

62 (2.0)

13 (10.0)

49 (7.2)

0.242

 Peripartum hysterectomy cardiopulmonary

169 (5.5)

12 (9.2)

81 (11.7)

0.423

 resuscitation

110 (3.6)

96 (73.8)

619 (88.9)

<0.001

aTransfusion more than 4 units of red blood cell concentrate

270 (8.7)

40 (30.8)

225 (32.4)

0.719

aIntubation unrelated to anesthesia

124 (4.1)

32 (24.6)

79 (11.4)

<0.001

 Admission to the HDU or ICU

541 (17.5)

71 (54.6)

464 (66.8)

0.008

aHospitalization longer than 7 days

537 (17.5)

34 (26.1)

496 (71.4)

<0.001

aReturn to operation theatre

67 (2.2)

14 (10.8)

52 (7.4)

0.205

 Referral to a more specialized unit

5 (1.5)

16 (14.0)

27 (3.9)

<0.001

 Major operative non-obstetric surgery

9 (0.3)

2 (1.5)

7 (1.0)

0.592

Ω More than one criterion was manifest in some patients; HDU is the high dependency unit, ICU is Intensive care Unit; a Some patients were among those with NLTC

Table 5 shows the prognostic factors for maternal near miss. Gravidity (ARR 1.1, 95 % C1 1.0–1.2), elevated serum lactate levels (ARR 4.5, 95 % CI 2.3–8.7), intubation for conditions unrelated to general anaesthesia (ARR 2.6 (95 % CI 1.2–5.7), cardiovascular collapse(ARR 4.9, 95 % CI 2.5–9.5), transfusion of 4 or more units of blood (ARR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.1–3.1), being a referral (ARR 2.6, 95 % CI 1.2–5.6), and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ARR 6.1, 95 % CI 3.2–11.7) were prognostic factors.
Table 5

Prognostic factors for severe maternal outcomes in women with severe maternal outcomes (maternal deaths plus near misses)

Characteristic

Maternal deaths

Maternal near miss morbidity

Crude risk ratios and 95 % CI

p-values

Adjusted risk ratios and 95 % CI

p-values

N (%)

N (%)

a Referral

      

 Yes

16 (12.3)

27 (28.4)

3.5

 

2.6

 

 No

114 (87.7)

668 (71.6)

(1.8–6.6)

<0.001

(1.2–5.6)

0.013

Admission to the ICU or HDU

     

0.018

 Yes

71 (54.6)

464 (66.8)

1.3

0.008

1.9

 No

59 (45.4)

231 (33.2)

(1.1–2.4)

 

(1.1–3.1)

CPR

     

<0.001

 Yes

34 (26.2)

76 (10.9)

2.9

<0.001

6.1

 No

96 (73.8)

619 (89.1)

(1.8–4.6)

 

(3.2–11.7)

Transfusion more than 4 units

     

0.013

 Yes

40 (30.8)

225 (32.3)

1.9

 

1.9

 No

90 (69.2)

470 (67.7)

(1.3–2.7)

0.002

(1.1–3.1)

Cardiovascular collapse

  

2.9

  

<0.001

 Yes

43(33.1)

121 (17.4)

(1.8–4.7)

<0.001

4.9

 No

87 (66.9)

574 (82.6)

  

(2.5–9.5)

Hypotension

     

<0.001

 Yes

72 (55.4)

531 (76.0)

2.6

<0.001

2.6

 No

58 (44.6)

164 (24.0)

(1.8–3.8)

 

(1.6–4.4)

Intubation

     

<0.001

 Yes

31 (31.3)

95 (13.7)

5.0

 

2.6

 No

99 (68.7)

600 (86.3)

(3.4–7.6)

<0.001

(1.2–5.7)

Elevated serum lactate

     

<0.001

 Yes

40 (30.8)

229 (32.9)

1.5

0.078

4.5

 No

90 (69.2)

466 (67.1)

(0.9–2.4)

 

(2.3–8.7)

βGravidity

     

0.042

 Gravid 1–4

100 (76.9)

541 (77.8)

1.2

0.046

1.1

 Gravida 5 or more

30 (23.1)

154 (22.2)

(1.1–1.4)

 

(1.0–1.2)

Thrombocytopenia

     

0.337

 Yes

60 (46.1)

373 (53.7)

1.4

0.116

1.4

 No

70 (53.9)

322 (46.3)

(0.9–1.9)

 

(0.7–3.20

HDU high dependency unit, ICU intensive care unit, RR relative risk, CI confidence intervals, CPR cardiopulmonary resuscitation; a Referral to another unit outside the obstetric unit; β Comparing gravida 5 or more versus gravida 4 and less; ∞ 68 women died within the first 7 days after admission, and therefore not included in the analysis

Discussion

The term near-miss describes a serious adverse event whereby death did not occur either due to luck or prompt adequate management [33]. This concept was defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as “a woman who, being close to death, survives a complication that occurred during pregnancy, delivery or up to 42 days after the end of her pregnancy” [2]. The WHO criteria employ presence of organ dysfunction or a combination of clinical features, laboratory findings and management practices).

Our results show that the WHO maternal near miss tool [2] is useful in investigating both maternal morbidity and the quality of care provided to women with severe obstetric complications. This study is innovative in that it was conducted in two referral centres (the national referral and one regional referral hospital), the sample size is quite large, and the study design was prospective. In addition, the study used the WHO criteria for definition of maternal near-miss, and indicators of organ-system dysfunction were assessed as prognostic factors. In this study, the WHO tool enabled identification of nearly 7 times more cases of severe morbidity compared to what assessment of maternal mortality could have yielded. Severe pre-eclampsia was the commonest morbidity, followed by postpartum haemorrhage. However, uterine rupture caused the highest case-fatality followed by eclampsia. The commonest diagnostic criteria for maternal near miss were admission to the high dependency unit (HDU) or to the intensive care unit (ICU). Gravidity, elevated serum lactate levels, intubation for conditions unrelated to general anaesthesia, cardiovascular collapse, transfusion of 4 or more units of blood, being a referral, and need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation were prognostic factors.

Our finding show no differences on socio-demographic characteristics (except for education level and gravidity) and medical history between the three groups (NLTC, near miss cases and maternal deaths). Therefore, the different clinical causes of morbidity differ only according to severity of the complications. In addition, the outcomes may not depend so much on the socio-demographic or medical history as on the quality of care individuals receive. The outcome of critically ill patients, such as patients with severe obstetric complications, is dependent on clinical and individual factors, previous health status, physiologic reserve, disease severity and adequacy of care provided [34, 35]. The severity depends on the inherent risk of disease progression and the quality of care received in terms of timeliness, adequacy and comprehensiveness. Since near miss cases share characteristics with maternal deaths, they may be used to provide information about hurdles that needed to be overcome after onset of or worsening of complications. In that way, near misses provide invaluable information on obstetrical care.

The WHO maternal near miss tool may be used as a scoring tool for severe obstetric morbidity. The complications that are unique to pregnancy or childbirth and the changed physiologic parameters (as a result of pregnancy changes) make pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium unique situations where routinely used scoring systems for disease severity may be inappropriate or inadequate [35, 36]. Many of the available scoring systems of disease are not applicable to disease severity in obstetric complications [34, 35]. Indeed the traditional risk stratification models used in critically ill non-obstetric patients usually overestimate mortality among pregnant women, which makes analysis of morbidity data especially prognostic factors and their interpretation difficult [36, 37].

The WHO maternal near miss tool is an innovative concept that could be used to identify prognostic indicators for patients with severe maternal morbidity [37, 38]. Early recognition and prompt management of severe life-threatening maternal morbidity through improved access, availability and affordability of critical life-saving skills and therapeutics is key to reduction of maternal morbidity and mortality. This calls for tools to assess prognostic factors in maternal near miss cases.

The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score is a validated score used to quantify organ dysfunction and predict prognosis for severely ill persons admitted to the ICU [39, 40]. The SOFA score is one of the scoring systems used to track a patient’s status during the stay in an ICU where it is used to determine the extent of a person’s organ function or rate of failure. The score is based on six different scores, one each for the respiratory, cardiovascular, hepatic, coagulation, renal and neurological systems. Both the mean and highest SOFA scores are predictive of mortality outcomes: an increase in SOFA score during the first 24 to 48 h in the ICU predicts a mortality rate in 50–95 % of cases [39, 40]. In a study of obstetric patients admitted to ICU, which compared scores on the WHO tool and the total maximum Sequential Organ Failure (SOFA) score as the gold standard, the WHO near miss criteria had a sensitivity and specificity of 99.2 % and 86.0 % respectively for identification of organ failure in at least one organ system [39]. In addition, the WHO tool had a sensitivity of 100 % and specificity 70.4 % for prediction of maternal deaths [39]. The total maximum SOFA score had a good performance (area under the curve of 0.897) for prediction of cases of maternal near miss according to the WHO criteria [39]. In another study assessing the utility of the SOFA score in obstetric patients, the total maximum SOFA score was significantly higher in women with severe maternal morbidity (SMM) when compared to that in women without SMM (p < 0.001) [40]. In addition, the total maximum SOFA score was predictive of survival by being able to discriminate pregnant women with SMM who did not survive (AUROC 0.77, 95 % CI: 0.46, 1.00) [40]. The WHO tool is therefore useful in identification of organ-system dysfunction and multiple organ failure, which is the final cause of death in patients with severe obstetric complications.

The analysis of maternal near misses is a useful innovation in the investigation of severe maternal morbidity [41], though it may require modification in certain contexts. For instance, in a study conducted in Tanzania using a modification of the tool [42], 216 maternal near misses and 32 maternal deaths were identified over a two year-period. From a hospital based study that used a modification of the WHO tool [43], the maternal mortality ratio was 350 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, the maternal near miss incidence ratio was 23.6 per 1000 live births, and the overall case fatality rate was 12.9 %. The use of the WHO tool underscores the practical challenges in determining organ-system dysfunction in obstetric patients. The evidence that the WHO tool scores fairly well in recognising organ dysfunction and failure when compared with standard tools such as the SOFA for assessing organ failure [44, 45], increases its utility in obstetric patients.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the WHO tool for analysis of maternal near miss, which uses defined criteria, can identify more preventable causes of maternal death than the traditional clinical criteria alone. Prospective monitoring of maternal morbidity may be useful in identifying determinants and prognostic factors of severe maternal morbidity.

Abbreviations

ARR: 

adjusted risk ratio

CI: 

confidence intervals

CPR: 

cardiopulmonary resuscitation

HDU: 

high dependency obstetric unit

HELLP syndrome: 

syndrome of hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets

ICU: 

intensive care unit

NLTC: 

non-life threatening obstetric complication

RR: 

risk ratio

SIDA: 

Swedish International Development Agency

SMM: 

severe maternal morbidity

SOFA: 

sequential organ failure assessment

WHO: 

World Health Organization

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study was part of a post-doctoral research project for DKK funded by the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) through the Makerere University-Karolinska Institutet postdoctoral-research grants. The findings and conclusions of this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the funders. We are grateful to all women and newborns who participated in this study.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University
(2)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jinja Regional Hospital
(3)
Department of Nursing, School of Health Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University
(4)
Clinical, Operations and Health Services Research Program, Joint Clinical Research Centre

References

  1. Report on the World Health Organization working group on the classification of maternal deaths and severe maternal morbidities. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009.Google Scholar
  2. Say L, Souza JP, Pattinson RC. Maternal near miss – towards a standard tool for monitoring quality of maternal health care. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;23:287–96.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Ronsmans C, Filippi V. Beyond the numbers Reviewing maternal deaths and complications to make pregnancy safer. Reviewing severe maternal morbidity and learning from women who survive life threatening complications. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.Google Scholar
  4. Adisasmita A, Deviany PE, Nandiaty F, Stanton C, Ronsmans C. Obstetric near-miss and deaths in public and private hospitals in Indonesia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2008;8:10.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Souza JP, Cecatti JG, Parpinelli MA, de Sousa MH, Serruya SJ. Systematic review of near miss maternal morbidity. Cad Saude Publica. 2006;22:255–64.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Minkauskien M, Nadisauskiene R, Padaiga Z, Makari S. Systematic review on the incidence and prevalence of severe maternal morbidity. Medicina. 2004;40:299–309.Google Scholar
  7. Okong P, Byamugisha J, Mirembe F, Byaruhanga R, Bergstrom S. Audit of severe maternal morbidity in Uganda-implications for quality of care. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85:797–804.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Souza JP, Cecatti JG, Parpinelli MA, Serruya SJ, Amaral E. Appropriate criteria for identification of near-miss maternal morbidity in tertiary care facilities: a cross sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2007;7:20.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Gandhi MN, Welz T, Ronsmans C. An audit of life-threatening maternal morbidity in rural South Africa using ‘near-miss’ criteria adapted for primary level hospitals. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2004;87:180–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Waterstone M, Bewley S, Wolfe C. Incidence and predictors of severe obstetric morbidity: case-control study. BMJ. 2001;322(7294):1089–94.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Mantel GD, Buchmann E, Rees H, Pattinson RC. Severe acute maternal morbidity: a pilot study of a definition for a near-miss. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;105(9):985–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Geller SE, Rosenberg D, Cox SM, Brown ML, Simonson L, Driscoll CA, et al. The continuum of maternal morbidity and mortality: factors associated with severity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(3):939–44.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Stones W, Lim W, Al-Azzawi F, Kelly M. An investigation of maternal morbidity with identification of life threatening ‘near miss’ episodes. Health Trends. 1991;23(1):13–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Glazener CM, Abdalla M, Stroud P, Naji S, Templeton A, Russell IT. Postnatal maternal morbidity: extent, causes, prevention and treatment. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;102:282–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Waterstone M, Wolfe C, Hooper R, Bewley S. Postnatal morbidity after childbirth and severe obstetric morbidity. BJOG. 2003;110:128–33.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Filippi V, Alihonou E, Mukantaganda S, Graham WJ, Ronsmans C. Near misses: maternal morbidity and mortality. Lancet. 1998;351(9096):145–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaye D, Mirembe F, Aziga F, Namulema B. Maternal mortality and associated near-misses among emergency intrapartum obstetric referrals in Mulago Hospital, Kampala, Uganda. East Afr Med J. 2003;80(3):144–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Strand RT, Campos PA, Paulsson G, de Oliveira J, Bergström S. Audit of referral of obstetric emergencies in Angola: a tool for assessing quality care. Afr J Reprod Health. 2009;13:75–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Strand RT, Tumba P, Niekowal J, Bergström S. Audit of cases with uterine rupture: a process indicator of quality of obstetric care in Angola. Afr J Reprod Health. 2010;14(2):55–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Filippi V, Ronsmans C, Gohou V, Goufodji S, Lardi M, Sahel A, et al. Maternity wards or emergency obstetric rooms? Incidence of near-miss events in African hospitals. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005;84(1):11–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Baskett TF, Sternadel J. Maternal intensive care and near-miss mortality in obstetrics. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;105(9):981–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Pattinson RC, Say L, Makin JD, Bastos MH. Critical incident audit and feedback to improve perinatal and maternal mortality and morbidity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;4:CD002961.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Amata AO. Anaesthetic and intensive care management of rupture of the gravid uterus: a review of 50 cases. Trop Doct. 1998;28(4):214–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Fawzi HW, Kamil KK, Stronge J. Rupture of the uterus in labour: a review of 14 cases in general hospital. J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;18:429–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Oladapo OT, Ariba AJ, Odusoga OL. Changing patterns of emergency obstetric care at a Nigerian University hospital. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2007;98(3):278–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Oladapo OT, Sule-Odu AO, Olatunji OA, Daniel OJ. “Near-miss” obstetric events and maternal deaths in Sagamu, Nigeria: a retrospective study. Reprod Health. 2005;2:9.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Prual A, Bouvier-Colle MH, de Bernis L, Breart G. Severe maternal morbidity from obstetric causes in West Africa: incidence and case fatality rates. Bull WHO. 2000;78(5):593–602.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Prual A, Huguet D, Garbin O, Rabe G. Severe obstetric morbidity of the third trimester, delivery and early puerperium in Niamey (Niger). Afr J Reprod Health. 1998;2(1):10–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaye DK, Kakaire O, Osinde MO. Maternal morbidity and near-miss mortality among women referred for emergency obstetric care in rural Uganda. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;114:84–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Haddad SM, Cecatti JG, Souza JP, Sousa MH, Parpinelli MA, Costa ML. Applying the maternal near miss approach for the evaluation of quality of obstetric care: a worked example from a multicenter surveillance study. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:989815.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Souza JP, Cecatti JG, Haddad SM, Parpinelli MA, Costa ML, Katz L. The WHO maternal near-miss approach and the maternal severity index model (MSI): tools for assessing the management of severe maternal morbidity. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e44129.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST). National guidelines for research involving humans as research participants; July 2014. Kampala: UNCST. p.16-22 http://www.uncst.go.ug/dmdocuments/Human%20Subjects%20Protection%20Guidelines%20July%202014.pdf
  33. Nashef SA. What is a near miss? Lancet. 2003;361(9352):180–1.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Strand K, Flaatten H. Severity scoring in the ICU: a review. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2008;52(4):467–78.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Higgins TL. Quantifying risk and benchmarking performance in the adult intensive care unit. J Intensive Care Med. 2007;22(3):141–56.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Lapinsky SE, Hallett D, Collop N, Drover J, Lavercombe P, Leeman M, et al. Evaluation of standard and modified severity of illness scores in the obstetric patient. J Crit Care. 2011;26(5):535. e1–e7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Lotufo FA, Parpinelli MA, Haddad SM, Surita FG, Cecatti JG. Applying the new concept of maternal near-miss in an intensive care unit. Clinics. 2012;67(3):225–30.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Cecatti JG, Souza JP, Parpinelli MA, Haddad SM, Camargo RS, Pacagnella RC, et al. Brazilian network for the surveillance of maternal potentially life threatening morbidity and maternal near-miss and a multidimensional evaluation of their long term consequences. Reprod Health. 2009;6:15.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Cecatti JG, Souza JP, Oliveira Neto AF, Parpinelli MA, Sousa MH, Say L, et al. Pre-validation of the WHO organ dysfunction based criteria for identification of maternal near miss. Reprod Health. 2011;8:22.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Kallur DS, Bada VP, Reddy P, Pandya S, Nirmalan PK. Dysfunction and organ failure as predictors of outcomes of severe maternal morbidity in an obstetric intensive care unit. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(4):6–8.Google Scholar
  41. Jayaratnam S, De Costa C, Howat P. Developing an assessment tool for maternal morbidity near miss – a prospective study in a large Australian regional hospital. ANZJOG. 2011;51(5):421.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Nelissen E, Mduma E, Broerse J, Ersdal H, Evjen-Olsen B, van Roosmalen J, et al. Applicability of the WHO maternal near miss criteria in a low-resource setting. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e61248.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Nelissen EJ, Mduma E, Ersdal HL, Evjen-Olsen B, van Roosmalen JJ, Stekelenburg J. Maternal near miss and mortality in a rural referral hospital in northern Tanzania: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:141.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Moreno R, Vincent JL, Matos R, Mendonça A, Cantraine F, Thijs L, et al. The use of maximum SOFA score to quantify organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care. Results of a prospective, multicenter study. Intensive Care Med. 1999;25:686–96.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Vincent J-L, De Mendonça A, Cantraine F, Moreno R, Takala J, Suter PM, et al. Use of the SOFA score to assess the incidence of organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care units: results of a multicentric, prospective study. Working group on “sepsis-related problems” of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Crit Care Med. 1998;26:1783–00.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Nakimuli et al. 2016