Shaylor Ruth, Weiniger Carolyn F, Austin Naola, Tzabazis Alexander, Shander Aryeh, Goodnough Lawrence T, Butwick Alexander J
From the *Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel; †Departments of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; ‡Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care Medicine, Pain Management and Hyperbaric Medicine, Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, Englewood, New Jersey; §Departments of Anesthesiology, Medicine and Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York; and ‖Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Anesth Analg. 2017 Jan;124(1):216-232. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001473.
In developed countries, rates of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) requiring transfusion have been increasing. As a result, anesthesiologists are being increasingly called upon to assist with the management of patients with severe PPH. First responders, including anesthesiologists, may adopt Patient Blood Management (PBM) recommendations of national societies or other agencies. However, it is unclear whether national and international obstetric societies' PPH guidelines account for contemporary PBM practices. We performed a qualitative review of PBM recommendations published by the following national obstetric societies and international groups: the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, United Kingdom; The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada; an interdisciplinary group of experts from Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, an international multidisciplinary consensus group, and the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians. We also reviewed a PPH bundle, published by The National Partnership for Maternal Safety. On the basis of our review, we identified important differences in national and international societies' recommendations for transfusion and PBM. In the light of PBM advances in the nonobstetric setting, obstetric societies should determine the applicability of these recommendations in the obstetric setting. Partnerships among medical, obstetric, and anesthetic societies may also help standardize transfusion and PBM guidelines in obstetrics.
在发达国家,需要输血的产后出血(PPH)发生率一直在上升。因此,麻醉医生越来越多地被要求协助管理严重PPH患者。包括麻醉医生在内的急救人员可能会采用国家学会或其他机构的患者血液管理(PBM)建议。然而,尚不清楚国家和国际产科学会的PPH指南是否考虑了当代的PBM实践。我们对以下国家产科学会和国际组织发布的PBM建议进行了定性综述:美国妇产科医师学会;英国皇家妇产科学院;澳大利亚和新西兰皇家妇产科医师学院;加拿大妇产科医师学会;来自奥地利、德国和瑞士的跨学科专家小组、一个国际多学科共识小组以及法国妇产科医师学院。我们还审查了国家孕产妇安全伙伴关系发布的一份PPH综合方案。根据我们的综述,我们确定了国家和国际学会在输血和PBM建议方面的重要差异。鉴于非产科环境中PBM的进展,产科学会应确定这些建议在产科环境中的适用性。医学、产科和麻醉学会之间的合作也可能有助于规范产科输血和PBM指南。