Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
197,768 studies31 sourcesUpdated 53 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica

Vacuum‐assisted hemorrhage control device versus uterine balloon tamponade for refractory atonic postpartum hemorrhage in a protocol‐driven care pathway—A retrospective cohort study

  • Kelvin Z. X. Lee1
  • Calista L. S. Por2
  • Tak Yein Lim1
  • Pradip Dashraath1,2
  • Wei Wei Teo3
  • Christopher King3,4
  • Su Wei Bryan Ng3,4
  • Harshaana Ramlal1
  • Liang Shen5
  • Arijit Biswas1,2,6
  • Ganesh Acharya7
  • Sabaratnam Arulkumaran8
2 more authors
  • Mahesh Choolani1,2,6
  • Sarah W. L. Li1
8 affiliations
  1. 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology National University Health System Singapore Singapore
  2. 2Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine National University of Singapore Singapore Singapore
  3. 3Department of Anesthesia National University Hospital Singapore Singapore
  4. 4Department of Anesthesia, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine National University of Singapore Singapore Singapore
  5. 5Biostatistics Unit, Department of Medicine National University of Singapore Singapore Singapore
  6. 6Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology National University Centre for Women and Children (NUWoC) Singapore Singapore
  7. 7Division of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC) Karolinska Institutet, and Center for Fetal Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital Stockholm Sweden
  8. 8City St George's University of London London UK
Read full textDOICite

Abstract

Introduction: Globally, 1 in 5 maternal deaths are attributable to major postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), despite widespread uterotonic use. Intrauterine tamponade is recommended as second‐line therapy for refractory atonic PPH. Uterine balloon tamponade (UBT) achieves hemostasis through intrauterine pressure. Conversely, the vacuum‐assisted hemorrhage‐control device (VHD) promotes uterine contraction through negative pressure. Limited data compare these modalities. We compared the clinical effectiveness of UBT and VHD in refractory atonic PPH.

Material and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at the National University Hospital in Singapore and included all women treated for primary PPH with either the UBT or VHD between January 2020 and September 2025, during which ROTEM‐guided transfusion and E‐MOTIVE‐aligned practices were implemented. The composite morbidity endpoint, comprising transfusion of ≥4 units of packed red blood cells (PRBC), plasma or cryoprecipitate administration, examination under anesthesia, high dependency or intensive care unit admission, or device failure was compared between groups with logistic regression adjusted for placenta previa major and cesarean delivery.

Results: Fifty‐three women met inclusion criteria (33 UBT, 20 VHD). The composite morbidity outcome occurred less frequently with VHD than UBT (45.0% versus 75.8%; unadjusted OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08–0.86, p = 0.03); after adjusting for placenta previa major and cesarean delivery, this difference was no longer statistically significant (adjusted OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10–1.41, p = 0.15). Baseline characteristics were similar except for higher rates of placenta previa (45.5% versus 5.0%) and cesarean delivery (78.8% versus 50.0%) in the UBT group. Median estimated blood loss at device insertion was comparable (1500 mL). Among secondary outcomes, VHD was associated with lower median PRBC transfusion (1 vs. 2 units, p = 0.009), fewer women receiving ≥4 PRBC units (5.0% versus 36.4%, p = 0.02), fewer plasma transfusions (5.0% versus 36.4%, p = 0.02), shorter device indwelling duration (10.1 versus 24.3 h, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (54 versus 72 h, p = 0.007), and fewer high‐dependency admissions (45.0% versus 72.7%, p = 0.04).

Conclusions: The VHD demonstrated outcomes comparable to balloon tamponade in managing refractory atonic PPH, with lower transfusion requirements and shorter hospitalization. VHD may be a useful component of standardized PPH protocols incorporating the E‐MOTIVE bundle and ROTEM‐guided transfusion, warranting further evaluation in broader clinical settings.

Related

  1. Single-lumen tube cuff tamponade and dynamic positioning for bronchoscopy-associated massive airway hemorrhage: a case series
    Journal of thoracic diseasePeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  2. Predicting postpartum hemorrhage in placenta accreta spectrum patients with prophylactic abdominal aorta balloon occlusion: a retrospective cohort study
    Ying Zha, Yun Zhao, Min Peng +17
    Archives of Gynecology and ObstetricsPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textObstetrics, gynaecology & paediatricsDOAJ
  3. Efficacy of prophylactic tranexamic acid in preventing postpartum hemorrhage following repeat cesarean sections: a retrospective matched-cohort study
    Xiaodan Di, Xiaojun Li, Zheng Zheng +3
    Frontiers in drug safety and regulationPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textObstetrics, gynaecology & paediatricsEurope PMCPMC
  4. Simulation-based education improves postpartum hemorrhage management knowledge and skills: a randomized controlled trial
    Ömercan Aksoy, Ergül Aslan
    Frontiers in medicinePeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  5. Manual external uterine compression for postpartum hemorrhage after vaginal delivery: a prospective cohort study
    Qing Guo, Jingxiao Zhang, Thomas Q. Zheng +7
    AJOG global reportsPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{lee2026vacuumassisted,
  title = {{Vacuum‐assisted hemorrhage control device versus uterine balloon tamponade for refractory atonic postpartum hemorrhage in a protocol‐driven care pathway—A retrospective cohort study}},
  author = {Kelvin Z. X. Lee and Calista L. S. Por and Tak Yein Lim and Pradip Dashraath and Wei Wei Teo and Christopher King and Su Wei Bryan Ng and Harshaana Ramlal and Liang Shen and Arijit Biswas and Ganesh Acharya and Sabaratnam Arulkumaran and Mahesh Choolani and Sarah W. L. Li},
  journal = {Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica},
  year = {2026},
  month = aug,
  doi = {10.1111/aogs.70334},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.70334},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Vacuum‐assisted hemorrhage control device versus uterine balloon tamponade for refractory atonic postpartum hemorrhage in a protocol‐driven care pathway—A retrospective cohort study
AU  - Kelvin Z. X. Lee
AU  - Calista L. S. Por
AU  - Tak Yein Lim
AU  - Pradip Dashraath
AU  - Wei Wei Teo
AU  - Christopher King
AU  - Su Wei Bryan Ng
AU  - Harshaana Ramlal
AU  - Liang Shen
AU  - Arijit Biswas
AU  - Ganesh Acharya
AU  - Sabaratnam Arulkumaran
AU  - Mahesh Choolani
AU  - Sarah W. L. Li
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/08/06
JO  - Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
DO  - 10.1111/aogs.70334
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.70334
AB  - Introduction: Globally, 1 in 5 maternal deaths are attributable to major postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), despite widespread uterotonic use. Intrauterine tamponade is recommended as second‐line therapy for refractory atonic PPH. Uterine balloon tamponade (UBT) achieves hemostasis through intrauterine pressure. Conversely, the vacuum‐assisted hemorrhage‐control device (VHD) promotes uterine contraction through negative pressure. Limited data compare these modalities. We compared the clinical effectiveness of UBT and VHD in refractory atonic PPH.  Material and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at the National University Hospital in Singapore and included all women treated for primary PPH with either the UBT or VHD between January 2020 and September 2025, during which ROTEM‐guided transfusion and E‐MOTIVE‐aligned practices were implemented. The composite morbidity endpoint, comprising transfusion of ≥4 units of packed red blood cells (PRBC), plasma or cryoprecipitate administration, examination under anesthesia, high dependency or intensive care unit admission, or device failure was compared between groups with logistic regression adjusted for placenta previa major and cesarean delivery.  Results: Fifty‐three women met inclusion criteria (33 UBT, 20 VHD). The composite morbidity outcome occurred less frequently with VHD than UBT (45.0% versus 75.8%; unadjusted OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08–0.86, p = 0.03); after adjusting for placenta previa major and cesarean delivery, this difference was no longer statistically significant (adjusted OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10–1.41, p = 0.15). Baseline characteristics were similar except for higher rates of placenta previa (45.5% versus 5.0%) and cesarean delivery (78.8% versus 50.0%) in the UBT group. Median estimated blood loss at device insertion was comparable (1500 mL). Among secondary outcomes, VHD was associated with lower median PRBC transfusion (1 vs. 2 units, p = 0.009), fewer women receiving ≥4 PRBC units (5.0% versus 36.4%, p = 0.02), fewer plasma transfusions (5.0% versus 36.4%, p = 0.02), shorter device indwelling duration (10.1 versus 24.3 h, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (54 versus 72 h, p = 0.007), and fewer high‐dependency admissions (45.0% versus 72.7%, p = 0.04).  Conclusions: The VHD demonstrated outcomes comparable to balloon tamponade in managing refractory atonic PPH, with lower transfusion requirements and shorter hospitalization. VHD may be a useful component of standardized PPH protocols incorporating the E‐MOTIVE bundle and ROTEM‐guided transfusion, warranting further evaluation in broader clinical settings.
SN  - 0001-6349
SN  - 1600-0412
ER  -