4.3 Article

Restrictive versus liberal fluid administration strategy (REFILL study) in postpartum hemorrhage and its effects on thromboelastometry (ROTEM & REG;) values: a randomized, controlled trial

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/03000605231171007

关键词

Thromboelastometry; postpartum hemorrhage; resuscitation; coagulation parameter; fibrinogen; labor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of fluid management on coagulation parameters in early postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). In a multicenter, randomized trial, women with 500 mL of blood loss in the third stage of labor were randomized to receive a restrictive or liberal fluid administration strategy. The results showed that there was no clinically relevant effect of fluid management on thromboelastometric hemostatic and regular coagulation parameters in women with PPH <1500 mL.
ObjectiveCurrent obstetric guidelines for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) vary in fluid resuscitation management. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of fluid management on coagulation parameters in early PPH. MethodsWe performed a multicenter, randomized trial. Women who had 500 mL of blood loss in the third stage of labor were randomized to receive a restrictive fluid administration strategy or a liberal fluid administration strategy. A rotational thromboelastometry panel was performed in 72 patients. We evaluated within-group and between-group differences in the EXTEM clotting time (CT), EXTEM amplitude at 10 minutes (A10), INTEM CT, and FIBTEM A10. We also evaluated the mean fibrinogen concentration, activated partial thromboplastin time, and partial thromboplastin time in the total study population (n = 249). ResultsThere were no significant differences in hemostatic parameters between the groups after correction for baseline values. ConclusionsIn women with PPH <1500 mL, there is no clinically relevant effect of a restrictive or liberal fluid administration strategy on thromboelastometric hemostatic and regular coagulation parameters.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据