Identifying the risk: A prospective cohort study examining postpartum haemorrhage in a regional Australian health service

Lauren Kearney* (Corresponding Author), Mary Kynn, Rachel Reed, Lisa Davenport, Jeanine Young, Keppel Schafer

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)
2 Downloads (Pure)


Background: In industrialised countries the incidence of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is increasing, for which exact etiology is not well understood. Studies have relied upon retrospective data with estimated blood loss as the primary outcome, known to be underestimated by clinicians. This study aimed to explore variables associated with PPH in a cohort of women birthing vaginally in coastal Queensland, Australia, using the gravimetric method to measure blood loss. Methods: Women were prospectively recruited to participate using an opt-out consent process. Maternal demographics; pregnancy history; model of care; mode of birth; third stage management practices; antenatal, intrapartum and immediate postpartum complications; gravimetric and estimated blood loss; and haematological laboratory data, were collected via a pre-designed data collection instrument. Descriptive statistics were used for demographic, intrapartum and birthing practices. A General Linear Model was used for multivariate analysis to examine relationship between gravimetric blood loss and demographic, birthing practices and intrapartum variables. The primary outcome was a postpartum haemorrhage (blood loss >500ml). Results: 522 singleton births were included in the analysis. Maternal mean age was 29years; 58% were multiparous. Most participants received active (291, 55.7%) or modified active management of third stage (191, 36.6%). Of 451 births with valid gravimetric blood loss recorded, 35% (n=159) recorded a loss of 500ml or more and 111 (70%) of these were recorded as PPH. Gravimetric blood loss was strongly correlated with estimated blood loss (r=0.88; p<0.001). On average, the estimated blood loss was lower than the gravimetric blood loss, about 78% of the measured value. High neonatal weight, perineal injury, complications during labour, separation of mother and baby, and observation of a gush of blood were associated with PPH. Nulliparity, labour induction and augmentation, syntocinon use were not associated with PPH. Conclusions: In contrast to previous study findings, nulliparity, labour induction and augmentation were not associated with PPH. Estimation of blood loss was relatively accurate in comparison to gravimetric assessment; raising questions about routine gravimetric assessment of blood loss following uncomplicated births. Further research is required to investigate type and speed of blood loss associated with PPH.

Original languageEnglish
Article number214
Pages (from-to)1-12
Number of pages12
JournalBMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Early online date7 Jun 2018
Publication statusPublished - 7 Jun 2018

Bibliographical note

The authors would like to acknowledge the midwifery and medical staff who assisted in the data collection for this study and the women who consented to participate.

The research study was generously funded through an early career grant awarded by Wishlist: Sunshine Coast Health Foundation. The grant funded a research midwife to undertake study co-ordination, data collection and entry.

Data Availability Statement

Availability of data and materials
The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to the ethical approval guidelines – consent was only sought from participants to use the data for this study alone. The data is stored in a secure, password protected file in a re-identifiable format.


  • Active management
  • Blood loss measures
  • Estimated blood loss
  • Expectant management
  • Gravimetric
  • Postpartum haemorrhage
  • Third stage labour management


Dive into the research topics of 'Identifying the risk: A prospective cohort study examining postpartum haemorrhage in a regional Australian health service'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this