Vol 88, No 8 (2017)
Review paper
Published online: 2017-08-31

open access

Page views 2142
Article views/downloads 2013
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Efficacy and safety of blood transfusion in obstetric patients: systematic review of the literature

Celso Módolo, Arnav Agarwal, Mariana Floriano Luiza Piva, Andresa Graciutti Botan, Samira Esteves Afonso Camargo, Nermeen Gawish, Norma Sueli Pinheiro Módolo, Regina El Dib
Pubmed: 28930372
Ginekol Pol 2017;88(8):446-452.


Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of blood transfusion compared to no intervention in obstetric patients. Material and methods: A systematic review was performed with Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials, PubMed, EMBASE and LILACS databases searched as of September, 2016. Two authors independently selected relevant clinical trials, assessed their methodological quality and extracted data, using the GRADE approach.

Results: Five studies within a total of 6,297 met the inclusion criteria, with women generally aged 20–40 years. Three included studies allocated women to receive blood transfusion or no intervention. Two other studies allocated women with either restricted or full blood supplies. The major issue regarding risk of bias was the extent of concealment of randomization and blinding. There was no statistically significant difference between blood transfusion versus no transfusion or restricted blood supply on mortality (relative risk 0.82 [95% confidential interval 0.32 to 2.09], p = 0.68; two studies; I2 = not applicable). Conclusions: Very low-quality evidence suggests no significant difference between blood transfusion and no intervention in obstetric patients, underlining the need for more robust clinical trials evaluating this area.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Patterson JA, Roberts CL, Isbister JP, et al. What factors contribute to hospital variation in obstetric transfusion rates? Vox Sang. 2015; 108(1): 37–45.
  2. Weeks A. The prevention and treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: what do we know, and where do we go to next? BJOG. 2015; 122(2): 202–210.
  3. Collis RE, Collins PW. Haemostatic management of obstetric haemorrhage. Anaesthesia. 2015; 70(Suppl 1): 78–86.
  4. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6(7): e1000097.
  5. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Cochrane Bias Methods Group, Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011; 343: d5928.
  6. Guyatt GH, Busse JW. Modification of Cochrane Tool to assess risk of bias in randomized trials. Distiller http://distillercer com/resources/ (access: 2017.03.26).
  7. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003; 327(7414): 557–560.
  8. Higgins JPT. Green S(ed). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 [updated March 2011b].Cochrane Collaboration. www.cochrane- handbook.org 2011 (access: 2017.03.26).
  9. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336(7650): 924–926.
  10. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence – study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(4): 407–415.
  11. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence – imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(12): 1283–1293.
  12. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE Working Group. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence – inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(12): 1294–1302.
  13. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE Working Group. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence – indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(12): 1303–1310.
  14. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence – publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(12): 1277–1282.
  15. The Nordic Cochrane Centre; The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011.
  16. Osei EN, Odoi AT, Owusu-Ofori S, et al. Appropriateness of blood product transfusion in the Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G) department of a tertiary hospital in West Africa. Transfus Med. 2013; 23(3): 160–166.
  17. Prick BW, Steegers EAP, Jansen AJ, et al. Well being of obstetric patients on minimal blood transfusions (WOMB trial). BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010; 10: 83.
  18. Philpott RH, Foster NE, Crichton D. Indications and effects of exchange transfusion in adults in gynaecology and obstetrics. Br Med J. 1966; 2(5530): 1630–1633.
  19. Ismail S, Siddiqui S, Shafiq F, et al. Blood transfusion in patients having caesarean section: a prospective multicentre observational study of practice in three Pakistan hospitals. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2014; 23(3): 253–259.
  20. Goundan A, Kalra JK, Raveendran A, et al. Descriptive study of blood transfusion practices in women undergoing cesarean delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2011; 37(10): 1277–1282.
  21. Likis FE, Sathe NA, Morgans AK, et al. Management of Postpartum Hemorrhage. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 151. (Prepared by the Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2012-00009-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 15-EHC013-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2015.