Retrospective review of cesarean hysterectomy outcomes utilizing uterine intravascular interventions in a large, community-based healthcare setting
Mironov NR, Kram JJF, Heslin K, Michelson ELD. Retrospective review of cesarean hysterectomy outcomes utilizing uterine intravascular interventions in a large, community-based healthcare setting. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;255:237-241.
OBJECTIVE: To explore outcomes of women with planned cesarean hysterectomies, with or without use of internal iliac intravascular occlusive balloon catheter or uterine artery embolization (UAE).
STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed adult women who underwent a planned cesarean hysterectomy, 2004-2019. All planned cases were included, regardless of indication. Planned surgeries were divided into three groups: balloon placement, UAE, or no intervention. Patients with balloon placement were further subdivided into: balloons placed but not deployed or balloons placed and deployed intraoperatively. Hemorrhage was defined as estimated blood loss (EBL) ≥1,500 mL. An adverse outcome was defined as one or more of the following: intensive care unit admission, thromboembolism, ureteral stent placement, amputation, or reoperation. Basic descriptive and inferential statistics were used to explore differences among groups and adverse outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 34 patients underwent planned cesarean hysterectomy. Ten patients (29.4%) had balloons placed, nine (26.5%) had UAE, and 15 (44.1%) had no intervention. Risk of hemorrhage was clinically higher among those with balloon placement (80% vs. 33% UAE vs. 60% no intervention; P = 0.14), with mean EBL (3,605.0 mL vs. 1,488.9 mL vs. 2,289.3 mL; P = 0.05) and mean transfusion requirements (9.3 units vs. 2.8 vs. 4.4; P = 0.01) being significantly higher. Adverse outcomes were also significantly higher among those with balloon placement (80.0% vs. 66.7% UAE vs. 20.0% no intervention; P ≤ 0.01). Of the ten patients with balloons placed, four were deployed. Among those with balloons placed and deployed, mean EBL (5,250.0 mL vs. 2,508.3 mL balloons placed but not deployed vs. 2,289.3 mL no intervention; P=0.04) and mean transfusion requirements (11 units vs. 7.5 units balloons placed but not deployed vs. 4.4 units no intervention; P = 0.05) were significantly higher. Adverse outcomes were also significantly higher among those who had balloons placed and deployed (100.0% vs. 66.7% balloons placed but not deployed vs. 20.0% no intervention; P ≤ 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Balloon placement, regardless of deployment, may not be beneficial to women undergoing a planned cesarean hysterectomy. Although UAE was also associated with adverse outcomes, it may be a better option for reducing intraoperative blood loss among patients with a planned cesarean hysterectomy.