Incidence of postpartum hemorrhage based on the improved combined method in evaluating blood loss: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE: In view of the current clinical inaccuracies and underestimations of postpartum hemorrhage amount, this study aims to investigate the incidence, etiology, clinical characteristics of postpartum hemorrhage in different modes of delivery based on the combination of volumetric method, gravimetric method and area method in evaluating blood loss. DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in Hangzhou Women’s Hospital from January 2020 to June 2021, including 725 cases of postpartum hemorrhage among 18,977 parturients. Based on different modes of delivery, the participants were divided into three groups: vaginal delivery, forceps delivery, and cesarean section, for comparison. METHODS: Using an improved combined assessment method for blood loss, we retrospectively analyzed a cohort of parturients with postpartum hemorrhage who underwent vaginal delivery, forceps delivery, or cesarean section and were hospitalized in Hangzhou Women’s Hospital from January 2020 to June 2021. RESULTS: (1) Among the 18,977 parturients, 725 cases of postpartum hemorrhage occurred, with an incidence rate of 3.8%, and severe postpartum hemorrhage accounted for 0.4% of the cases. (2) The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage was significantly higher in the forceps delivery group than in the vaginal delivery group (χ(2) = 19.27, P<0.001), while the incidence of severe postpartum hemorrhage was significantly higher in the cesarean section group than in the vaginal delivery group (χ(2) = 8.71, P = 0.003). (3) The causes of postpartum hemorrhage were statistically different among the different delivery modes, with varying underlying factors (P<0.001). (4) Patients with postpartum hemorrhage in different delivery modes showed statistically significant differences in age, body mass index (BMI), birth weight, gestational age, gravidity, parity, the decline of postpartum peripheral blood hemoglobin concentration, and estimated blood loss (P<0.05). (5) The proportion of blood transfusion was significantly higher in the cesarean section group than in the vaginal delivery and forceps delivery groups (χ(2) = 231.03, P<0.001). LIMITATIONS: This study is a single-center retrospective study, which may have led to selection bias in case selection. Additionally, the implementation of the combined three blood loss assessment methods may not have been strictly followed in all cases. Moreover, due to the mixing of bleeding with amniotic and irrigation fluids, the accuracy of evaluation may have been affected, leading to the possibility of inaccuracy of blood loss. CONCLUSIONS: Forceps delivery and cesarean section increase the risk of postpartum hemorrhage, but forceps delivery does not significantly increase the incidence of severe postpartum hemorrhage. Uterine atony remains the leading cause of postpartum hemorrhage, while birth canal laceration and placental factors are the second most common causes of postpartum hemorrhage in forceps delivery and cesarean section, respectively. In this study, the volumetric method, gravimetric method and area method were combined to quantitatively assess postpartum hemorrhage amount. The combined method has strong clinical practicability and is less affected by subjective factors, although it also has limitations. In the future, we still need to focus on the early prediction and identification of postpartum hemorrhage, and further improve the quantitative assessment of postpartum blood loss.