ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Care bundles are a promising approach to reducing postpartum hemorrhage-related morbidity and mortality. We assessed the effectiveness and safety of care bundles for postpartum hemorrhage prevention and/or treatment. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Maternity and Infant Care Database, and Global Index Medicus (inception to June 9, 2023) and ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (last 5 years) using a phased search strategy, combining terms for postpartum hemorrhage and care bundles. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed studies evaluating postpartum hemorrhage-related care bundles were included. Care bundles were defined as interventions comprising ≥3 components implemented collectively, concurrently, or in rapid succession. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, interrupted time series, and before-after studies (controlled or uncontrolled) were eligible. METHODS: Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 (randomized trials) and ROBINS-I (nonrandomized studies). For controlled studies, we reported risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with certainty of evidence determined using GRADE. For uncontrolled studies, we used effect direction tables and summarized results narratively. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included for analysis. For prevention-only bundles (2 studies), low-certainty evidence suggests possible benefits in reducing blood loss, duration of hospitalization, and intensive care unit stay, and maternal well-being. For treatment-only bundles (9 studies), high-certainty evidence shows that the E-MOTIVE intervention reduced risks of composite severe morbidity (risk ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.50) and blood transfusion for bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage, severe postpartum hemorrhage, and mean blood loss. One nonrandomized trial and 7 uncontrolled studies suggest that other postpartum hemorrhage treatment bundles might reduce blood loss and severe postpartum hemorrhage, but this is uncertain. For combined prevention/treatment bundles (11 studies), low-certainty evidence shows that the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative care bundle may reduce severe maternal morbidity (risk ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.72). Ten uncontrolled studies variably showed possible benefits, no effects, or harms for other bundle types. Nearly all uncontrolled studies did not use suitable statistical methods for single-group pretest-posttest comparisons and should thus be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION: The E-MOTIVE intervention improves postpartum hemorrhage-related outcomes among women delivering vaginally, and the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative bundle may reduce severe maternal morbidity. Other bundle designs warrant further effectiveness research before implementation is contemplated.
ABSTRACT
Background: Antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) are highly effective at improving outcomes for preterm newborns. Evidence suggests the benefits of ACS may vary with the time interval between administration-to-birth. However, the optimal ACS administration-to-birth interval is not yet known. In this systematic review, we synthesised available evidence on the relationship between ACS administration-to-birth interval and maternal and newborn outcomes. Methods: This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021253379). We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Global Index Medicus on 11 Nov 2022 with no date or language restrictions. Randomised and non-randomised studies of pregnant women receiving ACS for preterm birth where maternal and newborn outcomes were reported for different administration-to-birth intervals were eligible. Eligibility screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two authors independently. Fetal and neonatal outcomes included perinatal and neonatal mortality, preterm birth-related morbidity outcomes and mean birthweight. Maternal outcomes included chorioamnionitis, maternal mortality, endometritis, and maternal intensive care unit admission. Findings: Ten trials (4592 women; 5018 neonates), 45 cohort studies (at least 22,992 women; 30,974 neonates) and two case-control studies (355 women; 360 neonates) met the eligibility criteria. Across studies, 37 different time interval combinations were identified. There was considerable heterogeneity in included administration-to-birth intervals and populations. The odds of neonatal mortality, respiratory distress syndrome and intraventricular haemorrhage were associated with the ACS administration-to-birth interval. However, the interval associated with the greatest improvements in newborn outcomes was not consistent across studies. No reliable data were available for maternal outcomes, though odds of chorioamnionitis might be associated with longer intervals. Intepretation: An optimal ACS administration-to-birth interval likely exists, however variations in study design limit identification of this interval from available evidence. Future research should consider advanced analysis techniques such as individual patient data meta-analysis to identify which ACS administration-to-birth intervals are most beneficial, and how these benefits can be optimised for women and newborns. Funding: This study was conducted with funding support from the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research (SRH), a co-sponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization.
