RESUMEN
Objective: To compare oxytocin combined with ergometrine with oxytocin alone in terms of primary prophylaxis for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) at the time of cesarean section (CS). Methods: This was a multicenter double-blind randomized controlled interventional study comparing ergometrine combined with oxytocin and oxytocin alone administered at CS. From December 2018 to November 2019, a total of 298 parturients were enrolled in 16 hospitals nationwide. They were randomly divided into experimental group (ergometrine intra-myometrial injection following oxytocin intravenously; 148 cases) and control group (oxytocin intra-myometrial injection following oxytocin intravenously; 150 cases) according to 1â¶1 random allocation. The following indexes were compared between the two groups: (1) main index: blood loss 2 hours (h) after delivery; (2) secondary indicators: postpartum blood loss at 6 h and 24 h, placental retention time, incidence of PPH, the proportion of additional use of uterine contraction drugs, hemostatic drugs or other hemostatic measures at 2 h and 24 h after delivery, the proportion requiring blood transfusion, and the proportion of prolonged hospital stay due to poor uterine involution; (3) safety indicators: nausea, vomiting, dizziness and other adverse reactions, and blood pressure at each time point of administration. Results: (1) The blood loss at 2 h after delivery in the experimental group [(402±18) ml] was less than that in the control group [(505±18) ml], and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). (2) The blood loss at 6 h and 24 h after delivery in the experimental group were less than those in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (all P<0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of PPH, the proportion of additional use of uterine contraction drugs, hemostatic drugs or other hemostatic measures at 2 h and 24 h after delivery, the proportion requiring blood transfusion, and the proportion of prolonged hospital stay due to poor uterine involution (all P>0.05). (3) Adverse reactions occurred in 2 cases (1.4%, 2/148) in the experimental group and 1 case (0.7%, 1/150) in the control group. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The systolic blood pressure within 2.0 h and diastolic blood pressure within 1.5 h of drug administration in the experimental group were higher than those in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05), but the blood pressure of the two groups were in the normal range. Conclusion: The use of ergometrine injection in CS could reduce the amount of PPH, which is safe and feasible.