Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Incidence of immediate postpartum hemorrhages in French maternity units: a prospective observational study (HERA study)

  • Françoise Vendittelli1, 2, 3Email author,
  • Chloé Barasinski1, 2,
  • Bruno Pereira4,
  • Didier Lémery1, 2, 3 and
  • the HERA Group
BMC Pregnancy and ChildbirthBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201616:242

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-1008-7

Received: 29 July 2015

Accepted: 4 August 2016

Published: 24 August 2016

Abstract

Background

Most estimates of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) are calculated from studies that use administrative or medical birth databases, and only a few from prospective observational studies.

Our principal objective was to estimate the incidence of PPH according to their severity (mild or severe) in vaginal deliveries (>500 mL, ≥1000 mL) and cesareans (>1000 mL and ≥1500 mL). The secondary objectives were to describe the incidence of PPH according to maternity unit characteristics, causes, and types of PPH management.

Methods

This prospective observational study took place in French maternity wards. Women who gave birth at a term ≥ 22 weeks were eligible for the study. 182 maternity units participated in a study with prospective data collection from 1 February, 2011, to 31 July, 2011. The main outcome measure was PPH incidence.

Results

PPH incidence after vaginal delivery was 3.36 % [95 % CI: 3.25–3.47 %] and after cesareans 2.83 % [95 % CI: 2.63–3.04 %]. The incidence of severe PPH after vaginal delivery was 1.11 % [95 % CI: 1.05–1.18 %] and after cesareans 1.00 % [95 % CI: 0.88–1.13 %]. This incidence rate varied according to maternity unit characteristics. The principal cause of PPH for both modes of delivery was uterine atony (57.7 % for vaginal births and 66.3 % for cesareans). Vascular embolization was more frequent among women with cesareans (10.0 vs. 2.9 %), who also required transfusions more often (44.4 vs 12.7 %).

Conclusions

The incidence of PPH was lower than the rate expected from the literature. Effective treatment of uterine atony and optimizing the identification of blood loss remain important priorities.

Keywords

Blood transfusion Cesarean Maternal morbidity Postpartum hemorrhage Uterine atony

Background

Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) remains a major cause of maternal deaths worldwide [1, 2]. In France, PPH was the leading cause of death, responsible for 18 % of maternal deaths in the decade from 1998 to 2007 [3]. Hemorrhage-related events are among the most preventable causes of maternal death.

Previous studies have suggested that severe maternal morbidity may be a better indicator of the quality of obstetric care, particularly in developed countries where maternal mortality is rare [49]. Obstetric hemorrhage is the main cause of severe maternal morbidity [6, 7, 10]. There is, however, no universally accepted definition of PPH [11, 12]. Accordingly, definitions using various levels of estimated blood loss [7, 1319], various quantities of transfused blood [7, 16], specific decreases in postpartum hemoglobin [7, 20], or composite criteria [16, 2022] have all been used in previous publications.

The prevalence of PPH (defined as ≥500 mL blood loss) and severe PPH (defined as ≥1 000 mL blood loss) are reported to be around 6.0 and 1.86 % of all deliveries, respectively, and vary widely throughout the world [23]. Most estimates are calculated from observational studies that use administrative or medical birth databases [14, 1719, 2429]; only a few come from prospective observational studies [15, 20, 30]. Of the two French population-based studies [20, 31], only one was prospective, conducted in 16 of the 33 maternity units of the Rhône-Alpes perinatal network in 2004–2005 [20]. The overall incidence of immediate PPH was 5.4 ± 0.3 %, but the diagnosis was clinical in 82.5 % of the severe cases and in 77.5 % of milder ones; the remainder were detected by postpartum laboratory tests [20]. A broader incidence study therefore appeared useful, one that would include several French regions, be supported by French perinatal networks, and for which all participating professionals would apply a standard definition of PPH.

The principal objective of this study was to estimate the incidence of PPH, as either relatively mild or severe, in vaginal (>500 mL and ≥1000 mL) and cesarean (>1000 mL and ≥1500 mL) deliveries. The secondary objectives were to describe the incidence of PPH according to characteristics of the maternity units, causes, and types of PPH management.

Methods

Materials

This prospective observational study was approved by a French institutional review board (Comité d’Ethique des Centres d’Investigation Clinique de l’Inter-région Rhônes-Alpes-Auvergne, Grenoble: CECIC): IRB 0917 on 9 November 2009]. Our study adhered to STROBE guidelines. All patients were informed about the study and that neither participation in it nor refusal to consent would affect their treatment, which would be the usual standard of care.

Eligible women had singleton or multiple pregnancies, regardless of parity, delivered stillborn or live born babies in a participating maternity unit by vaginal or cesarean delivery, at or after a gestation of 22 weeks (or, in the absence of a specific date for the beginning of the pregnancy, birth of a child ≥500 g).

Data source

We contacted 43 French perinatal networks to request their support for this study of their maternity units. Twenty perinatal networks, covering 231 eligible maternity units, agreed to support this 6-month project (1 February 2011 to 31 July 2011). Finally, 182 maternity units participated, for a participation rate of 78.79 % maternity units (84 level I, 69 level II and 29 level III). In 10 perinatal networks (50 % of those participating), all of the network’s maternity units participated. Table 1 compares the characteristics of the French maternity units that participated and those that did not.
Table 1

Comparison of the characteristics of French maternity units that did and did not participate in the study

 

Participants

n = 181

%

Non-participantsa

n = 377

%

p value

Total no. deliveriesb

  < 250

7.7

11.4

0.12

 250–749

58.0

49.9

 

  ≥ 750

34.3

38.7

 

Level of carec

 Level I

45.9

50.1

0.22

 Level II

38.1

38.2

 

 Level III

16.0

11.7

 

Type of facility

 University hospital

8.8

8.8

0.02

 General hospital

64.1

52.5

 

 Private hospital

27.1

38.7

 

Regiond

 Province

82.9

82.8

0.97

 Île de France

17.1

17.2

 

aMaternity units that did not participate in the study among all French maternity units, according to 2010 healthcare facility statistics

bDelivery during the 6-month study period

cLevel I: no neonatology department. Level II: presence of a department of neonatology and special care in the same building or immediate proximity to the site of delivery. Level III: neonatal intensive care present in the same building (in addition to neonatology units) or immediate proximity to the delivery room

dIle de France includes Paris and its metropolitan area. Province is all other French regions

In each case of postpartum hemorrhage (defined as blood loss >500 mL for vaginal delivery and >1000 mL for cesareans in the 24 h after delivery), the medical and/or surgical treatment and maternal outcomes were recorded. Blood loss was to be estimated visually with the habitual method used in each unit and specified in each woman’s records. Professionals in each unit collected data prospectively for 6 months, entering it onto electronic case report forms via a secure website.

The principal endpoint was the incidence of PPH.

Quality control was performed in 30 % of the maternity units in each participating network, selected by random drawing, from September 2011 to November 2012. In each of the selected maternity wards, 10 % of the study files (again, randomly selected) were verified manually as were the birth registers, either by a supervisor of the perinatal network or by one of the two midwives coordinating the study nationwide. One maternity ward was excluded from the statistical analysis because it refused to participate in the quality control procedure. Finally 53 maternity units were audited (and 108 records verified).

Statistical analysis

The χ2 test (or Fisher’s exact test when appropriate) was used to compare the qualitative variables and Student’s t test for the quantitative variables. Clinically relevant crude relative risks (RR) were calculated (cesareans compared with vaginal deliveries), with their 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI). The analysis was performed with STATA software (version 13, Statacorp, College Station, TX, US). A P value < .05 was considered significant.

Results

Table 2 describes the women’s medical characteristics. Women in the cesarean group were older, gave birth at an earlier gestational age, and had more multiple pregnancies (P < .001).
Table 2

Description of medical data of women who had a PPH

Women with PPH

Vaginal delivery and PPH

n = 3488

% [mean ± SD]

Cesarean and PPH

n = 719

% [mean ± SD]

p value

Delivery at term (weeks)

[39.7 ± 2.2]

[38.3 ± 3.1]

<.0001

Singletons

96.8

87.7

<.0001

Women’s age

  < 18 years

0.8

0.1

<.0001

 18–35 years

83.5

70.7

  ≥ 35 years

15.7

29.2

Hemoglobin before delivery (mL)

n = 3335

[11.9 ± 1.1]

n = 699

[11.7 ± 1.2]

<.0001

Lowest postpartum hemoglobin (mL)

n = 3169

[9.0 ± 1.6]

n = 690

[8.2 ± 1.6]

<.0001

Total estimated blood loss (mL)

n = 3398

[895 ± 460]

N = 663

[1513 ± 816]

-

Estimated blood lossa

 Bag and/or aspiration and/or drains

n = 3465

90.4

n = 711

79.4

<.0001

 Weighed

n = 3466

15.4

n = 710

20.7

.0005

 Subjective measurement

n = 3464

21.5

n = 710

38.9

<.0001

Active management of third stage of laborb

n = 3469

79.8

n = 703

90.7

<.0001

aTo participate in the study, blood loss had to be estimated visually but additional modes of estimation used in the maternity units were also considered. The estimate of blood loss could requires various combined methods of measurement, such as aspiration and the weighing of compresses during a cesarean

bActive management of the third stage of labor was defined as the use of uterotonic agents after childbirth. It was performed in 73.7 % of the cesareans with PPH immediately after birth and in 25.6 % of cases after delivery of the placenta. In vaginal deliveries, active management of the third stage of labor began at the emergence of the anterior shoulder in 91.5 % of cases, immediately after birth in 7.3, and in 0.9 % of cases after placental delivery

During the study period there were 129,110 deliveries in the participating maternity units (103,733 vaginal and 25,377 cesarean) with 4207 PPH reported, including 3488 after vaginal delivery, 714 PPH after cesareans, and 5 after a cesarean performed on the second twin.

The incidence of PPH (>500 mL) after vaginal delivery was 3.36 % [95 % CI: 3.25–3.47 %] and after cesareans (>1000 mL) 2.83 % [9 5% CI: 2.63–3.04 %]. The incidence of severe PPH after vaginal delivery (≥1000 mL) was 1.11 % [95 % CI: 1.05–1.18] and after cesareans (≥1500 mL) 1.0 % [95 % CI: 0.88–1.13 %].

For vaginal deliveries, the incidence of transfusions among the women with mild PPH (>500 mL and < 1000 mL) was 4.95 % [95 % CI: 4.08–5.93], and among those with severe PPH 28.45 % [95 % CI: 25.87–31.13]. For the cesareans, the incidence of transfusions with mild PPH (>1000 mL and < 1500 mL) was 33.16 % [95 % CI: 28.54–38.05] and among those with severe PPH 64.54 % [95 % CI: 58.28–70.46].

The incidence of PPH varied according to maternity unit characteristics (number of deliveries, type of hospital, and region) for cesareans (P < .003) and for vaginal deliveries (P < .001) (except for the number of deliveries) (Table 3).
Table 3

Incidence of PPH according to maternity unit characteristics

 

Vaginal deliveries

Cesareans

n = 103,733

% [95 % CI]

p value

n = 25,377

% [95 % CI]

p value

No. deliveriesa

  < 250

3.84 [3.07–4.73]

.11

1.31 [0.53–2.69]

<.001

 250–749

3.23 [3.06–3.41]

2.20 [1.92–2.51]

  > 750

3.43 [3.29–3.58]

3.29 [3.01–3.59]

Levelb

 I

2.77 [2.58–2.96]

< .001

1.94 [1.63–2.29]

<.001

 II

3.26 [3.09–3.44]

2.50 [2.21–2.83]

 III

4.05 [3.83–4.27]

4.05 [3.63–4.51]

Regionc

 Ile de France

2.78 [2.57–3.01]

< .001

2.27 [1.91–2.68]

.003

 Province

3.52 [3.39–3.65]

3.01 [2.77–3.26]

aNumber of deliveries during the 6-month study period

bLevel I: no neonatology department. Level II: presence of a department of neonatology and special care in the same building or immediate proximity to the site of delivery. Level III: neonatal intensive care present in the same building (in addition to neonatology units) or immediate proximity to the delivery room

cIle de France includes Paris and its metropolitan area. Province: all other French regions

The principal cause of PPH for both modes of delivery was uterine atony (57.7 % for vaginal births and 66.3 % for cesareans) (Table 4). The second and third leading causes of PPH after vaginal delivery were, respectively, placental retention (38.7 %) and perineal tears and lacerations (24.9 %). For cesareans, the second leading cause was surgical complications (16.4 %) and the third abnormalities of placental insertion (12.7 %). Finally, in 8.5 % of the PPH after cesareans, the cause was not determined (vs. 1.6 % in vaginal deliveries). The risk of uterine atony was 1.15 times more frequent [95%CI: 1.08–1.22] and the risk of intraoperative complications 190 times more frequent [95 % CI: 60.84–598.46] for cesarean compared with vaginal deliveries (Table 4). When we limited the comparison of PPH for the 2 types of delivery by defining them by the same volume of blood loss (>1000 mL), the results pointed in the same direction (except for uterine atony, which no longer differed according to mode of delivery)[data not shown] (see Additional file 1: Table S1).
Table 4

Causes of PPH according to mode of delivery

Causes of PPHa

Vaginal delivery and PPH

n = 3488

%a

Cesarean and PPH

n = 719

%a

Crude RRb [95 % CI]

p value

Uterine atony

57.7

66.3

1.15 [1.08–1.22]

<.0001

Placental retention

38.7

2.6

0.07 [0.04–0.11]

<.0001

Vaginal and/or perineal lacerations

24.9

1.7

-

-

Episiotomy

19.4

0.8

-

-

Anomaly of placental insertion

1.9

12.7

-

-

Uterine rupturec

0.4

1.7

4.15 [1.93–8.95]

-

Cervical lacerations

3.4

0.8

-

-

Vaginal thrombus

1.3

0.4c

-

-

Others

 intraoperative complications

0.1

16.4

190.81 [60.84–598.46]

<.0001

 hemorrhagic normal 3rd staged

0.3

0.1

-

-

 amniotic fluid embolism

0.1

0.1

-

-

 uterine inversion

0.1

0.0

-

-

 coagulation disorders

0.2

2.6

-

-

 not determinede

1.6

8.5

-

-

aOne woman could have had several causes that explain her PPH

bcesareans vs. vaginal deliveries

cThere were 3 trials of vaginal delivery (1 woman with an episiotomy and placental retention, 1 woman with no other anomaly, and 1 woman with a uterine rupture and a vaginal laceration)

dHemorrhagic normal third stage: excessive blood loss during a normal separation of the placenta from the uterine wall

eThe professionals were unable to select a principal cause for the PPH

The estimate of blood loss was more often subjective for cesarean than vaginal deliveries (38.9 vs. 21.5 %) (P < .0001); similarly use of active management of the third stage of labor (injection of uterotonic agents) was more frequent for cesareans (90.7 vs. 79.8 %) (P < .0001) (Table 2). Oxytocin was the uterotonic used after cesareans in 86.7 % of the cases, with carbetocin used in 13.3 %. Oxytocin was used in 98.4 % of the PPH after vaginal deliveries.

Women with PPH after vaginal delivery received the following pharmacological products: oxytocin in 89.8 % of cases (n = 3473), prostaglandins in 33.0 % (n = 3472), fibrinogen in 2.8 % (n = 3473), factor VIIa in 0.5 % (n = 3472), and tranexamic acid in 5.1 % (n = 3473). After cesareans, they received oxytocin in 76.6 % (n = 709), prostaglandins in 57.1 % (n = 711), fibrinogen in 10.8 % (n = 711), factor VIIa in 1.1 % (n = 711), and tranexamic acid in 14.3 % (n = 711).

The non-pharmacological procedures, that is, second-line treatments, are described in Table 5. Manual uterine examination was reported in 80 % of the PPH after vaginal deliveries. Intrauterine balloon treatment was still infrequent during the study period. Vessel embolization by interventional imaging was 3.4 times [95 % CI: 2.58–4.63] more frequent among women with cesareans than those with vaginal deliveries (10.0 vs. 2.9 %). At the same time, surgical procedures were less frequent after cesarean than vaginal deliveries (25.5 vs. 42.6 %) [RR = 0.6; 95 % CI: 0.52–0.68]. After excluding surgical procedures of the perineum, the RR for surgical procedures was 5.36 [95 % CI:4.22–6.82] after cesarean compared with vaginal deliveries (23.5 vs. 4.4 %). Women with cesareans required transfusions more often (44.4 vs. 12.7 %) [RR = 3.5; 95 % CI: 3.11–3.95] (Table 5).
Table 5

Non-pharmaceutical curative second-line procedures performed for PPH

Non-pharmaceutical procedures

Vaginal delivery and PPH

n = 3488

%

Cesarean and PPH

n = 719

%

Crude RRf [95 % CI]

p value

Manual uterine examination

80.0

-

-

-

Intrauterine balloon

0.9

1.0

1.06 [0.47–2.39]

.9

Radiologic artery embolization

2.9

10.0

3.46 [2.58–4.63]

<.0001

Surgical proceduresa

42.6

25.5

0.60 [0.52–0.68]

<.0001

 B-Lynch suture

0.3

3.9

-

-

 Ho Cho suture

0.1

3.5

-

-

 Hypogastric arterial ligation

0.3

6.5

-

-

 Other vessel ligation

0.5

10.3

-

-

 Cervical suture

3.0b

0.7

-

-

 Suture of a vaginal laceration

39.9

2.5

-

-

 Hysterectomy

0.4

5.6

-

-

 Repair of uterine wound closure

-

2.8

-

-

 Evacuation of hematoma of the abdominal wall

0

0.7

-

-

 Other surgery

0.3c

6.1d

-

-

Transfusion of packed red blood cells

12.7

44.4

3.5 [3.11–3.95]

<.0001

Maternal death

0.03e

0

-

-

aRegardless of the type of surgical procedure

bAmong women with a cervical laceration, we note 3 emergency hysterectomies

cCorresponds to 8 uterine ruptures sutured without a hysterectomy and one traction rotation of the cervix with forceps

dCorresponds to 3 uterine ruptures sutured without a hysterectomy and 6 sutured bladder lacerations ; 2 laparotomies with ablation of clots without active bleeding ; 1 laparatomy for a retroperitoneal hematoma, and a ruptured hepatic adenoma ; 2 laparotomies with reoperation of the uterus and evacuation of intrauterine clots

eOne maternal death

fCesareans vs. vaginal deliveries

Again, if we limit the comparison of the two types of delivery by defining PPH by the same volume of blood loss (>1000 mL), the results again pointed in the same direction, with arterial embolization still more frequent but no longer statistically significantly (10.0 % vs. 8.1 %; RR = 1.24 [95 % CI: 0.89–1.71] and transfusion of packed red blood cells [RR = 1.27; 95 % CI:1.12–1.44] more frequent for cesarean deliveries [data not shown] (see Additional file 2: Table S2).

Discussion

Study strengths and limitations

This study covered 129,110 of the 786,559 deliveries recorded in France in 2011 and accounted for 32.82 % of all deliveries during the 6 months of the study [32]. However, private hospitals participated at a lower rate than the other types of hospitals (Table 1). Among the 20 perinatal networks that agreed to support the study, the participation rate was satisfactory (78.79 %). This participation was total (100 % of their maternity units) for 50 % of the networks. The definition of PPH was standardized and the data collection prospective, in a daily clinical setting. Substantial quality control to verify data input quality was performed in 30 % of the maternity units.

The choice to use different definitions of PPH according to mode of delivery can be debated. Based on a discussion between obstetricians, it was intended to facilitate the participation of the obstetrics professionals in the maternity units. A large number of obstetricians considered that a threshold of 500 mL for cesareans was inappropriate, both because it would considerably increase the number of PPH among cesareans and because the amniotic fluid aspired at the moment of incision makes this threshold unreliable. Moreover, although the French guidelines of December 2014 clearly define PPH as blood loss ≥500 mL, regardless of mode of delivery, the definition was less clear in the 2004 guidelines, in effect during the study period [33, 34]. We further note that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists uses the same definition we did: > 500 mL for vaginal deliveries and > 1000 mL for cesareans [35].

Another criticism is that the determination of the volume of blood loss was not more objective. Visual estimates of blood loss are known to be inaccurate and associated with an underestimation of blood loss [11, 36]. However, it is the first-line method available to physicians in the immediacy of decision making and it is widely used in French maternity wards. In a large European trial, the use of a collection bag compared with visual estimates of blood loss after vaginal delivery was not found to reduce the rate of severe PPH [37].

Interpretation

The incidence of PPH (>500 mL) after vaginal delivery was 3.36 % [95 % CI: 3.25–3.47 %], slightly lower than the percentage reported in several studies [14, 19, 23]. However, the studies that measured blood loss objectively, as opposed to subjectively, have showed higher prevalence rates [23]. Elsewhere, there is a wide variation in PPH rates throughout the world [23]. The incidence of severe PPH (≥1000 mL) after vaginal delivery was 1.11 % [95 % CI: 1.05–1.18], lower than reported by some authors [17, 38] and similar to the results in another French study [20]. Here again, this prevalence varies widely internationally [23, 30]. The incidence of PPH (>1000 mL) after cesareans was 2.83 % [95 % CI: 2.63–3.04 %], similar to other reported rates [37, 39], and the incidence of severe PPH (≥1500 mL) after cesareans was 1.0 % [95 % CI: 0.88–1.13 %]. It is not always easy to compare the published studies because the definition of severe PPH varies from study to study and is not often defined simply as a volume of blood loss [20, 21, 25]. Finally, despite definitions of PPH that vary by mode of delivery, authors generally calculate an overall incidence of PPH without distinguishing the mode of delivery [12, 18, 29, 4042]. The incidence of PPH here varied according to maternity unit level, contrary to the results in another French study [20]. The incidence of PPH varied in our study according to number of deliveries only for the cesareans; this is unsurprising because patients at risk of PPH are most often referred to Level III units, which are also the largest. Nonetheless, a US study found a higher rate of PPH in the lowest volume rural hospitals than in non-rural hospitals, for both cesareans and spontaneous vaginal deliveries [43].

Blood loss volume was measured subjectively in 21.5 % of the PPH after vaginal delivery, compared with 38.9 % of those after cesareans. This may explain in part the more frequent use in France of second-line treatments, which underlines a possible delay in diagnosis [14]. It should be noted that in France, most maternity units do not routinely perform blood counts, except in PPH identified by the volume of blood loss or by clinical signs of hypovolemia or anemia. Finally, active management of the third stage of labor was performed for only 79.8 % of the PPH after vaginal delivery and 90.7 % after cesareans, although the 2004 French guidelines recommended this management routinely for all deliveries [33]: active management of the third stage of labor, including the prophylactic application of uterotonics, is considered a key point in the prevention of PPH [44]. Oxytocin is the agent used most frequently, even after cesareans. The percentage of active management of the third stage of labor has increased in France since 2006 [45]. It is probable that the national rate in 2015 is still better, after the 2014 publication of the updated French guidelines. Our results are consistent with those from a database collecting information regularly from volunteer French maternity units [46].

Unsurprisingly, uterine atony was the most common cause of PPH both for vaginal and cesarean deliveries (Table 4), but our results highlight the frequency of multiple causes in the same patient. The third leading cause of PPH after vaginal delivery was perineal tears or lacerations, and the fourth leading cause episiotomies. Episiotomies remain relatively common in France, with an overall rate around 28.5 % [46] and a rate in nulliparas around 45 % [46, 47]. The second leading cause of PPH during cesareans in our study was related to the surgical incision (16.4 %). To our knowledge, this is the first study to detail the causes of PPH associated with surgical procedures among the cesareans with PPH. The extension of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery is well known to obstetricians [21, 48, 49], but other causes of PPH after a cesarean can include uterine bleeding due to incision into the muscle, active bleeding persisting after suture of the incision, and hematomas, either subperitoneal or of the broad ligament or the uterine wall, or due to an incision either transplacental or through a highly vascularized lower segment. The rate of relaparotomy after cesarean delivery is thought to be around 1.5–2 % [4951]. Levin et al. found that 89.3 % of the indications for relaparotomy after cesareans were associated with hemorrhagic complications (28 relaparotomies for 17,482 cesareans) [50]. The surgical incision during cesareans is therefore associated with immediate or secondary hemorrhagic complications, to which we must add non-hemorrhagic intraoperative or postoperative complications [48, 52, 53]. These risks of immediate (not to mention longer-term) complications must encourage obstetricians to limit the number of cesareans and therefore to avoid choosing to perform first cesareans, especially among nulliparous women.

The pharmacologic treatments used in this study show notable use of tranexamic acid, fibrinogen, and recombinant activated factor VII; they were used more often after cesareans and signal that these deliveries entailed more serious PPH.

Among the non-pharmacological curative second-line procedures, we see that the intrauterine balloon tamponade was still little used in France at that time, unlike in UK maternity units [54]. Use of balloon tamponade is relatively recent in France, and the first small French series was not published until 2012 [55]. This technique has since been spreading among French maternity units and is now proposed after failure of prostaglandin treatment by the 2014 French guidelines [34]. We also note that embolization is fairly frequent in France, particularly after cesareans, somewhat surprisingly. That is, one would expect more revision surgery after cesareans, but that may be explained by the delayed character of PPH in the recovery room or during postpartum monitoring, and by easy access to vascular embolization platforms in larger maternity units, outside the Paris region. Emergency hysterectomy was, as in the literature, more frequent after cesareans (5.6 %) [28, 5659]. Second-line treatment of PPH remains challenging, since we lack sufficient scientific evidence from randomized controlled trials for choosing the specific treatment.

After vaginal deliveries, 12.7 % of the women with PPH had transfusions (vs. 44.4 % for the cesareans with PPH). The transfusion rate after vaginal deliveries reported here is higher than that observed in other studies [14, 60]. The excess risk of transfusion after cesareans also varies according to parity, number of previous cesareans, and type of cesarean (elective vs. emergency), but these factors were not collected in this study [6163].

Conclusion

The incidence of PPH after vaginal delivery was 3.36 % and after a cesarean 2.83 %. The incidence of severe PPH after vaginal delivery was 1.11 % and after a cesarean 1.00 %. This incidence rate varied according to maternity unit characteristics. The principal cause of PPH for both modes of delivery was uterine atony, which is therefore the obstetric complication for which improvement in prevention, identification, and management remain important priorities in maternity units.

It is essential to have harmonized international definitions of PPH after vaginal and cesarean deliveries, whether it is volume or method of collection of blood loss, in order to facilitate the comparison of the incidence and prevalence rates of PPH in both developed and low-income countries. Moreover, studies should seek to assess the methods to optimize immediate diagnosis of PPH, such as improvements in the visual estimates of blood loss (simulations of clinical scenarios, posters with photographs of blood losses accompanied by a calibrator to help determine the blood volume) or weighing the lost blood.

Abbreviations

CECIC, Comité d’Ethique des Centres d’Investigation Clinique; HERA Group, [postpartum HEmoRrhAge] group; IRB, Institutional review board; PPH, Postpartum hemorrhage

Declarations

Acknowledgements

‘HERA GROUP: Bernard Branger, MD, is a pediatrician; Laure Connan, MD, is an obstetrician-gynecologist; Catherine Crenn-Hébert, MD, is an obstetrician-gynecologist; Caroline Da Costa Correia is a midwife; Michel Dreyfus, MD, PhD, is a professor in obstetrics and gynecology; Paul Lefèvre, MD, is an obstetrician-gynecologist; Anne Legrand, MD, is a statistician.

Funding

This study was supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health (PHRCN 2009, N° 05-05).

Availability of date and material

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available because they belong to the institutional promotor of the Hera study (Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand), but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

FV, BB and DL designed the study. FV, BP, CB carried out the analysis. FV wrote the first draft of the manuscript. FV and DL obtained the funding for the study. FV, CB, BP, AL and DL supervised the interpretation of the analysis. The Hera group, including all the authors, helped in revising the manuscript and monitoring the national study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

FV, MD, PhD, is an obstetrician-gynecologist and an epidemiologist.

CB, MS, is a research midwife.

BP, PhD, is a statistician.

DL, MD, PhD, is a professor in obstetrics and gynecology.

Competing interest

None of the authors has any conflict of interest concerning the topic or contents of this article.

Consent for publication

‘Not applicable’

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by a French institutional review board (Comité d’Ethique des Centres d’Investigation Clinique de l’Inter-région Rhônes-Alpes-Auvergne, Grenoble: CECIC): IRB 0917 on 9 November 2009]. According to the French law for the observational studies, all participants provided oral informed consent.

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)
Pôle Femme et Enfant, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand
(2)
Université d’Auvergne, EA 4681, PEPRADE (Périnatalité, grossesse, Environnement, PRAtiques médicales et DEveloppement), Clermont Université
(3)
AUDIPOG (Association des Utilisateurs de Dossiers Informatisés en Pédiatrie, Obstétrique et Gynécologie), Faculté de médecine RTH Laennec
(4)
Direction de la Recherche clinique, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand

References

  1. Khan KS, Wojdyla D, Say L, Gulmezoglu AM, Van Look PF. WHO analysis of causes of maternal death: a systematic review. Lancet. 2006;376:1066–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Rossi CA, Mullin P. The etiology of maternal mortality in developed countries: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;285:1499–503.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Saucedo M, Deneux-Tharaux C, Bouvier-Colle MH, French national experts committee on maternal mortality. Ten years of confidential inquiries into maternal death in France, 1998-2007. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:752–60. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31829fc38c.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Zhang WH, Alexander S, Bouvier-Colle MH, Macfarlane A, The MOMS-B Group. Incidence of severe pre-eclampsia, postpartum haemorrhage and sepsis as a surrogate marker for severe maternal morbidity in a European population-based study: the MOMS-B survey. BJOG. 2005;112:89–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Koeberlé P, Lévy A, Surcin S, Bartholin F, Clément G, Bachour K, Boillot A, Capellier G, Riethmuller D. Severe obstetric complications necessitating hospitalization and intensive care: a ten year retrospective study. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2000;19:445–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Murphy CM, Murad K, Deane R, Byrne B, Geary MP, McAuliffe FM. Severe maternal morbidity for 2004-2005 in the three Dublin maternity hospitals. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;143:34–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Walterstone M, Bewley S, Wolfe C. Incidence and predictors of severe obstetric morbidity: case-control study. BMJ. 2001;322:1089–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Euro-Peristat Porject with SCPE and EUROCAT. European Perinatal Health Report. The health and care of women and babies in Europe in 2010. May 2013. [http://www.europeristat.com/images/doc/EPHR2010_w_disclaimer.pdf]
  9. Bouvier-Colle MH, Varnoux N et le groupe MOMS-B. Mortalité maternelle et morbidité grave dans trois régions françaises : résultats de MOMS, une enquête européenne multicentrique. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2001;30 (S6):2S5-2S9.Google Scholar
  10. Brace V, Penney G, Hall M. Quantifying severe maternal morbidity: a Scottish population study. BJOG. 2004;11:481–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Rath WH. Postpartum hemorrhage – update on problems of definitions and diagnosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:421–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Knight M, Callaghan WM, Berg C, Alexander S, Bouvier-Colle MH, Ford JB, Joseph KS, Lewis G, Liston RM, Roberts CL, Oats J, Walker J. Trends in postpartum hemorrhage in high resource countries: a review and recommendations from the International postpartum hemorrhage collaborative group. BMC Pregnancy Chilbirth. 2009;9:55. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-9-55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Bonnar J. Massive obstetric haemorrhage. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;14:1–18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Bonnet MP, Basso O, Bouvier-Colle MH, Dupont C, Rudigoz C, Fuhrer R, Deneux-Tharaux C. Postpartum haemorrhage in Canada and France: a review population-based comparison. PloS one. 2013;8:e66882. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066882.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Briley A, Seed PT, Tydeman G, Ballard H, Waterstone M, Sandall J, Poston L, Tribe RM, Bewley S. Reporting errors, incidence and risk factors for postpartum haemorrhage and progession to severe PPH: a prospective observational study. BJOG. 2014;121:876–88.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Mehrabadi A, Hutcheon JA, Lee L, Kramer MS, Liston RM, Joseph KS. Epidemiological investigation of a temporal increase in atonic postpartum haemorrhage: a population-based retrospective cohort study. BJOG. 2013;120:853–62.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Oberg AS, Hernandéz-Diaz S, Frisell T, Greene MF, Almqvist C, Bateman BT. Genetic contribution to postpartum haemorrhage in Swedish population: cohort study of 466 686 births. BMJ. 2014;349:g4984. doi:10.1136/bmj.g4984.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Mehrabadi A, Liu S, Bartholomew S, Hutcheon JA, Kramer MS, Liston RM, Joseph KS, for the maternal health study group of the Canadian perinatal surveillance system. Temporal trends in postpartum hemorrhage and severe postpartum hemorrhage in Canada from 2003 to 2010. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014;36:21–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Ford JB, Roberts CL, Simpson JM, Vaughan J, Cameron CA. Increased postpartum hemorrhage rates in Australia. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2007;98:237–43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Dupont C, Douzet S, Colin C, Deneux-Tharaux C, Rabillaud M, Clement HJ, Lansac J, Bouvier-Colle MH, Rudigoz RC. 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Brace V, Kernaghan D, Penney G. Learning from adverse clinical outcomes: major obstetric haemorrhage in Scotland, 2003-05. BJOG. 2007;114:1388–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Dupont C, Rudigoz RC, Cortet M, Touzet S, Colin C, Rabilloud M, Lansac J, Harvey T, Tessier V, Chauleur C, Pennehouat G, Morin X, Bouvier-Colle MH, Deneux-Tharaux C. Incidence, étiologies et facteurs de risque de l’hémorragie du post-partum : étude en population dans 106 maternités françaises. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2014;43:244–53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Carroli G, Gusta C, Abalos E, Gülmezoglu AM. Epidemiology of postpartum haemorrhage : a systematic review. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;22:999–1012.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Davis D, Baddock S, Pairman S, Hunter M, Benn C, Anderson J, Dixon L, Herbison P. Risk of severe postpartum hemorrhage in low-risk childbearing women in New Zealand: Exploring the effect of place of birth and comparing third stage management labor. Birth. 2012;39:98–105.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kramer MS, Berg C, Abenhaim H, Dahhou M, Rouleau J, Mehrabadi A, Joseph KS. Incidence, risk factors, and temporal trends in severe postpartum hemorrhage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:449.e1–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Lutomski JE, Byrne BM, Devane D, Greene RA. Increasing trends in atonic postpartum haemorrhage in Ireland: an 11-year population-based cohort study. BJOG. 2012;119:306–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Roberts CL, Ford JB, Algert CS, Bell JC, Simpson JM, Morris JM. Trends in adverse maternal outcomes during childbirth: a population-based study of severe maternal morbidity. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2009;9:7. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-9-7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Bateman BT, Mhyre JM, Callaghan WM, Kuklina EV. Peripartum hysterectomy in the United States: nationwide 14 year experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:63.e1–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Callagan WM, Kuklina EV, Berg CJ. Trends in postpartum hemorrhage: United States, 1994-2006. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202:353.e1–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Montufar-Rueda C, Rodriguez L, Jarquin JD, Barboza A, Bustillo MC, Marin F, Ortiz G, Estrada F. Severe postpartum hemorrhage from uterine atony: a multicentric study. J Pregnancy. 2013;2013:525914. doi:10.1155/2013/525914. Epub 2013 Dec 2.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Audureau E, Deneux-Tharaux C, Lefèvre P, Brucato S, Morello R, Dreyfus M, Bouvier-Colle MH. Practices for prevention, diagnosis and management of postpartum haemorrhage : impact of a regional multifaced intervention. BJOG. 2009;116:1325–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Institut National des Etudes démographiques (Ined) [ http://www.ined.fr/fr/tout-savoir-population/chiffres/france/naissance-fecondite/].
  33. Haute autorité de Santé (HAS). Recommandations pour la pratique clinique. Hémorragies du post-partum immédiat. Novembre 2004 [http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/HPP_recos.pdf].
  34. Collège National des Gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF). Recommandations pour la pratique Clinique. Les hémorragies du post-partum. Décembre 2014 [http://www.cngof.asso.fr/data/RCP/CNGOF_2014_HPP.pdf].
  35. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists: postpartum hemorrhage. ACOG Practice Bulletin N°76. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1039–47.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Glover P. Blood loss at delivery: how accurate is your estimation? Aust J Midwifery. 2003;16:21–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang WH, Deneux-Tharaux C, Brocklehurst P, Juszczak E, Joslin M, Alexander S, on behalf of the EUPHRATES Group. Effect of a collector bag for measurement of postpartum blood after vaginal delivery: cluster randomized trial in 13 European countries. BMJ. 2010;340:c293. doi:10.1136/bmj.c293.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Rossen J, Ohland I, Nilsen OB, Eggebo TM. Is there an increase of postpartum hemorrhage, and is severe hemorrhage associated with more frequent use of obstetric interventions? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89:1248–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Kolas T, Oian P, Skjeldestad FE. Risk for peroperative excessive blood loss in cesarean delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol. 2010;89:658–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Cameron CA, Roberts CL, Olive EC, Ford JB, Fischer WE. Trends in postpartum haemorrhage. Aust NZ Public Health. 2005;30:151–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Kramer MS, Dahhou M, Vallerand D, Liston R, Joseph KS. Risk factors for postpartum hemorrhage: can we explain the recent temporal increase? J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33:810–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Snowden JM, Cheng YW, Emeis CL, Caughey AB. The impact of hospital obstetric volume on maternal outcomes in term, non-low-birthweight pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:1.e1–e7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Westhoff G, Cotter AM, Tolosa JE. Prophylactic oxytocin for the third stage of labour to prevent postpartum haemorrhage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;10:CD001808. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001808.pub2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Vendittelli F, Rivière O, Crenn-Hébert C, Giraud-Roufast A. Do perinatal guidelines have an impact on obstetric practices? Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2012;60:355–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Association des Utilisateurs de Dossiers Informatisés en Pédiatrie, en Obstétrique et en Gynécologie (AUDIPOG): Database access [http://www.audipog.net/interro-choix.php].
  47. Blondel B, Kermarrec M. Enquête nationale périnatale 2010. Les naissances en 2010 et leur évolution depuis 2003. Mai 2011. [http://www.sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Les_naissances_en_2010_et_leur_evolution_depuis_2003.pdf]
  48. De la Torre L, Gonzàles-Quintero VH, Mayor-Lynn K, Smarkusky L, Hoffman C, Saab A, Diro M. Significance of accidental extension in the lower uterine segment during cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:e4–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Pallasmaa N, Ekblad U, Aitokallio-Tallberg A, Uotila J, Raudaskoski T, Ulander VM, Hurme S. Cesarean delivery in Finland: maternal complications and obstetric risk factors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89:896–902.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Levin I, Rapaport AS, Salzer L, Maslovitz S, Lessing JB, Almog B. Risk factors for relaparotomy after cesarean delivery. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2012;119:163–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Kessous R, Danor D, Weintraub YA, Witznitzer A, Sergienko R, Ohel I, Sheiner E. Risk factors for relaparotomy after cesarean section. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25:2167–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Liu S, Liston RM, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS, for the maternal health study group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ. 2007;176:455–60.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Vincent A, Ayzac L, Girard R, Caillat-Vallet E, Chapuis C, Depaix F, Dumas AM, Gignoux C, Haond C, Lafarge-Leboucher J, Launay C, Tissot-Guerraz F, Fabry J. Downward trends in surgical site and urinary tract infection after cesarean delivery in a French surveillance network, 1997-2003. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29:227–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Kayem G, Kurinczuk JJ, Alfirevic Z, Spark P, Brocklehurst P, Knight M. Specific second-line therapies for postpartum haemorrhage: a national cohort study. BJOG. 2011;118:856–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Laas E, Bui C, Popowski T, Mbaku OM, Rozenberg P. Trends in the rate of invasive procedures after the addition of the intrauterine tamponade test to a protocol for management of severe postpartum hemorrhage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207:281.e1–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Spiliopoulos M, Kareti A, Jain NJ, Kruse LK, Hanlon A, Dandolu V. Risk of peripartum hysterectomy by mode of delivery and prior obstetric history: data from a population-based study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283:1261–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, Brocklehurst P, for the United Kingdom Obstetric Surveillance System Steering Committee. Cesarean delivery and peripartum hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;11:97–105.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Owolabi MS, Blake RE, Mayor MT, Adegbulugbe HA. Incidence and determinants of peripartum hysterectomy in the metropolitan area of the district of Columbia. J Reprod Med. 2013;58:167–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Bodelon C, Bernabe-Ortiz A, Schiff MA, Reed SD. Factors associated with peripartum hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:115–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Bonnet MP, Deneux-Tharaux C, Dupont C, Rudigoz RC, Bouvier-Colle MH. Transfusion practices in postpartum hemorrhage: a population-based study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:404–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Goudan A, Kalra JK, Raveendran A, Bagga R, Aggarwal N. Descriptive study of blood transfusion practices in women undergoing cesarean delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2011;37:1277–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Saidu R, Bolaji BO, Olatinwo AWO, Mcintosh CM, Alio AP, Salihu HM. Repeat caesarean delivery as a risk factor for abnormal blood loss, blood transfusion and perinatal mortality. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31:728–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Rouse DJ, MacPherson C, Landon M, Varner MW, Leveno KJ, Moawad AH, Spong CY, Caritis SN, Meis PJ, Wapner RJ, Sorokin Y, Miodovnik M, Carpentier M, Peaceman AM, O’Sullivan MJ, Sibai BM, Langer O, Thorp JM, Ramin SM, Mercer BM, for the National institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine units Network. Blood transfusion and cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:891–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016