English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Objective  To evaluate the ability of estimated blood loss (EBL) and quantitative blood loss (QBL) to predict the need for blood transfusion in postpartum patients.  Methods  This is a retrospective observational study involving all deliveries one year before and after the change from EBL to QBL assessment in June 2017. Blood loss, need for blood transfusion, admission hematocrit, and postpartum nadir hematocrit were collected. Descriptive and bivariable analyses were performed. Receiver operator curves were compared.  Results  Overall, the baseline characteristics between the EBL (n=2743) and QBL (n=2,712) groups were similar. Although there was a higher rate of blood loss ≥ 1,000 mL in QBL vs EBL (6.5% vs 2.1%, P<0.001), there was no difference in the rate of blood transfusions (2.0% vs 2.0%, P=1). Among cesarean deliveries, QBL outperformed EBL for predicting blood transfusion and/or ≥10 point drop in hematocrit (AUC 0.75 vs 0.66, P=0.02). QBL also outperformed EBL for predicting transfusion after vaginal delivery (AUC 0.93 vs 0.81, P=0.03).   Conclusion  QBL is a more sensitive test for detecting clinically significant blood loss, which could lead to earlier recognition of hemorrhage and interventions. 

Quantification of Blood Loss Improves Detection of Postpartum Hemorrhage and Accuracy of Postpartum Hemorrhage Rates: A Retrospective Cohort Study