Search

Objective: To elucidate the association between GBS infection and maternal risk for obstetric hemorrhage (OBH) and OBH-related morbidities (OBH-M). Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of all deliveries with a documented GBS status at a single large academic medical center from 2018 to 2019. GBS status was determined by either urine culture or rectovaginal culture collected during the antepartum period. The primary outcomes were quantitative blood loss (QBL), OBH, and a composite of OBH-M. Secondary outcomes were individual components of the OBH-M composite and frequency of hemorrhage-related interventions utilized intrapartum and postpartum. A stratified analysis was conducted examining only patients who were diagnosed intrapartum with an intrapartum intraamniotic infection (III). Results: Of 4679 pregnant individuals who delivered a live infant between January 1, 2018 and January 1,2019 with a documented GBS status, 1,487 were identified as GBS positive (+) and 3192 were identified as GBS negative (−). The GBS + group did not have significantly higher QBL (p = 0.29) or rate of OBH (p = 0.35). There were no significant differences by GBS status in OBH morbidity (p = 0.79) or its individual components or frequency of individual pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic OBHrelated interventions. There were also no significant differences by GBS status among patients with an III. Conclusions for Practice: GBS infection at the time of delivery was not associated with increased risk for OBH or OBH-M. Further research is needed to further explore the relationship between peripartum infections and OBH risk. Significance: GBS infection in neonates has long been feared due to life-threatening outcomes for the neonate, yet few studies have studied the impact of GBS infection on mothers Vornhagen (Trends Microbiol 25(11):919–931, 2017); Chun-Chih (Pediatr Neonatol 59(3):231–237, 2018); Hirsch (Nat Commun 9(1):263, 2018). Our study fills this gap by exploring the effects of GBS infection on maternal OBH while using quantitative blood loss (QBL) methods, which have been shown to be more accurate than the visually estimated methods used in previous studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and Objectives: Our goal is to describe the association between total quantitative blood loss (QBL) and risk of obstetric haemorrhage‐related morbidity (OBH‐M) to assess the utility of the current definition of obstetric haemorrhage (OBH). Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study completed of all patients who had a live delivery at the only urban safety‐net hospital over a 2‐year period from 2018 to 2019. We categorized deliveries into 10 equally sized deciles based on QBL and compared the proportion with OBH‐M in each. Among the two deciles with the highest proportions of OBH‐M, we stratified deliveries into seven groups of ascending intervals of 250cc QBL. Finally, we compared the positive predictive value (PPV) of the standard definition of OBH (QBL ≥ 1000cc) to a definition extrapolated from our stratified analysis. The primary outcome was proportion of deliveries within each QBL decile affected by OBH‐M. The secondary outcome was PPV. Results: We found a significant increase in OBH‐M from decile 9 (895–1201cc QBL) to decile 10 (1205–8325cc QBL) (p < 0.001). In our stratified analysis, we found QBL of 1500cc to be an inflection point for an increased proportion of OBH‐M. Our secondary analysis showed an increased PPV for OBH‐M using QBL of 1500cc (20.5%) compared with that of QBL 1000cc (9.8%). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that a higher QBL threshold than the currently accepted definition of OBH is more predictive of OBH‐M. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]