4.5 Article

Effect of prophylactic placement of internal iliac artery balloon catheters on outcomes of women with placenta accreta: an impact study

期刊

ANAESTHESIA
卷 72, 期 7, 页码 853-858

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/anae.13895

关键词

anaesthesia; arterial balloon occlusion; caesarean section; haemorrhage; internal iliac arteries; placenta previa; placenta accreta; postpartum haemorrhage

资金

  1. National Scientific Foundation of China [81401623]
  2. Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province, China [2016HH0066]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We performed an impact study on the introduction of routine placement of internal iliac artery balloon catheters for the management of haemorrhage during caesarean section in women with placenta accreta. We identified 11 women, with prenatally diagnosed placenta accreta/increta/percreta before this change in practice, who acted as controls, and 30 women who had iliac artery balloons placed. The balloons were inflated in 27 cases. The median (IQR [range]) intra-operative blood loss was 1100 (800-2600 [500-6000]) ml in controls, compared with 1000 (600-2513 [400-15000]) ml in women with iliac artery balloons (p = 0.64). Six (54%) controls received intra-operative blood transfusion compared with 14 (47%) women with iliac artery balloons (p = 0.66). Caesarean hysterectomy was performed in 3 (27.3%) controls and 13 (43.3%) women with iliac artery balloons (p = 0.48). Balloon catheter insertion was associated with a shortened postoperative hospital stay, 6 (5-7 [4-12] days in controls vs. 5 (4-6 [3-10]) in the iliac artery balloon group (p = 0.033). General anaesthesia was used in six (54%) controls, but all women with iliac artery balloons. This study demonstrates that prophylactic balloon occlusion of the internal iliac arteries did not reduce intra-operative haemorrhage or caesarean hysterectomy in women with placenta accreta undergoing caesarean section. In addition, it has a significant impact on the choice of anaesthetic technique.

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

4.5
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