Tranexamic acid versus oxytocin for primary postpartum Haemorrhage in the out-of-hospital setting: A systematic review with implications for rural practice.

INTRODUCTION: Primary postpartum haemorrhage causes approximately 25% of global maternal deaths and accounts for significant maternal morbidity. While high certainty evidence demonstrates that tranexamic acid reduces comparative blood loss in postpartum haemorrhage in hospital settings, limited data exist on the specific pharmacological management of this condition in out-of-hospital settings, and the implications for rural communities. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of oxytocin compared to tranexamic acid in women suffering postpartum haemorrhage in the out-of-hospital environment. DESIGN: A systematic review comparing evidence containing patients with postpartum haemorrhage in the out-of-hospital and/or rural setting, in which oxytocin/tranexamic acid were used. Outcome measures were comparative blood loss/haemorrhagic shock, the need for further interventions and maternal/neonatal morbidity/mortality. FINDINGS: No randomised control trials have been conducted in an out-of-hospital environment in relation to oxytocin/tranexamic acid. In this setting, there is no difference in outcome measures when using oxytocin compared to no intervention, or oxytocin compared to standard care. Data are lacking on the effect of tranexamic acid on the same outcome measures. DISCUSSION: Rural and out-of-hospital management of postpartum haemorrhage is limited by resource availability and practitioner availability, capacity and experience. In-hospital evidence may lack transferability, therefore direct evidence on the efficacy of pharmacological management in these contexts is scant and requires redress. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in blood loss, neonatal or maternal mortality or morbidity, or need for further interventions, when using oxytocin or TXA compared to no intervention, or compared to standard care, for PPH. Further studies are needed on the efficacy of these drugs, and alternate or co-drug therapies, for PPH in the out-of-hospital environment and rural clinical practice.

Screening tools for sepsis identification in paramedicine and other emergency contexts: a rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a life-threatening condition that contributes significantly to protracted hospitalisations globally. The unique positioning of paramedics and other emergency care cadres in emergency contexts enable the prospect of early identification and management of sepsis, however, a standardised screening tool still does not exist in the emergency setting. The objective of this review was to identify and recommend the most clinically ideal sepsis screening tool for emergency contexts such as emergency departments and out-of-hospital emergency contexts. METHODS: A rapid review of five databases (Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and ProQuest Central) was undertaken, with searches performed on February 10, 2022. Covidence software was used by two authors for initial screening, and full text review was undertaken independently by each reviewer, with conflicts resolved by consensus-finding and a mediator. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, and prospective observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Data extraction used an a priori template and focused on sensitivity and specificity, with ROBINS-I and ROBIS bias assessment tools employed to assess risk of bias in included studies. Study details and key findings were summarised in tables. The a priori review protocol was registered on Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3XQ5T ). RESULTS: The literature search identified 362 results. After review, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. There were five systematic reviews, with three including meta-analysis, eleven prospective observational studies, one randomised controlled trial, and one validation study. CONCLUSIONS: The review recognised that a paucity of evidence exists surrounding standardised sepsis screening tools in the emergency context. The use of a sepsis screening tool in the emergency environment may be prudent, however there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend a single screening tool for this context. A combination of the qSOFA and SIRS may be employed to avoid 'practice paralysis' in the interim. The authors acknowledge the inherent potential for publication and selection bias within the review due to the inclusion criteria.