BackgroundMost estimates of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) are calculated from studies that use administrative or medical birth databases, and only a few from prospective observational studies.Our principal objective was to estimate the incidence of PPH according to their severity (mild or severe) in vaginal deliveries (>500 mL, ≥1000 mL) and cesareans (>1000 mL and ≥1500 mL). The secondary objectives were to describe the incidence of PPH according to maternity unit characteristics, causes, and types of PPH management.MethodsThis prospective observational study took place in French maternity wards. Women who gave birth at a term ≥ 22 weeks were eligible for the study. 182 maternity units participated in a study with prospective data collection from 1 February, 2011, to 31 July, 2011. The main outcome measure was PPH incidence.ResultsPPH incidence after vaginal delivery was 3.36 % [95 % CI: 3.25–3.47 %] and after cesareans 2.83 % [95 % CI: 2.63–3.04 %]. The incidence of severe PPH after vaginal delivery was 1.11 % [95 % CI: 1.05–1.18 %] and after cesareans 1.00 % [95 % CI: 0.88–1.13 %]. This incidence rate varied according to maternity unit characteristics. The principal cause of PPH for both modes of delivery was uterine atony (57.7 % for vaginal births and 66.3 % for cesareans). Vascular embolization was more frequent among women with cesareans (10.0 vs. 2.9 %), who also required transfusions more often (44.4 vs 12.7 %).ConclusionsThe incidence of PPH was lower than the rate expected from the literature. Effective treatment of uterine atony and optimizing the identification of blood loss remain important priorities.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-016-1008-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction: In the context of the stage 3 SARS-Cov-2 epidemic situation, it is necessary to put forward a method of rapid response for an HAS position statement in order to answer to the requests from the French Ministry of Solidarity and Health, healthcare professionals and/or health system users' associations concerning follow-up of pregnant women during the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods: A simplified 7-step process that favours HAS collaboration with experts (healthcare professionals, health system users' associations, scientific societies etc.), the restrictive selection of available evidence and the use of digital means of communication. A short and specific dissemination format, which can be quickly updated in view of the changes in available data has been chosen.

IntroductionThe scientific data currently available do not allow any definitive conclusion to be reached about what type of pushing should be recommended to women during the second stage of labour. The objective of this trial is to assess and compare the effectiveness of directed open-glottis pushing versus directed closed-glottis pushing. Secondary objectives are to assess, according to the type of pushing: immediate maternal and neonatal morbidity, intermediate-term maternal pelvic floor morbidity, uncomplicated birth, and women's satisfaction at 4 weeks post partum.Methods and analysisThis multicentre randomised clinical trial compares directed closed-glottis pushing (Valsalva) versus directed open-glottis pushing during the second stage of labour in 4 hospitals of France. The study population includes pregnant women who received instruction in both types of pushing, have no previous caesarean delivery, are at term and have a vaginal delivery planned. Randomisation takes place during labour once cervical dilation ≥7 cm. The principal end point is assessed by a composite criterion: spontaneous delivery without perineal lesion (no episiotomy or spontaneous second-degree, third-degree or fourth-degree lacerations). We will need to recruit 125 women per group. The primary analysis will be by intention-to-treat analysis, with the principal results reported as crude relative risks (RRs) with their 95% CIs. A multivariate analysis will be performed to take prognostic and confounding factors into account to obtain adjusted RRs.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by a French Institutional Review Board (Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud Est 6:N°AU1168). Results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific meetings. This study will make it possible to assess the effectiveness of 2 types of directed pushing used in French practice and to assess their potential maternal, fetal and neonatal effects. Findings from the study will be useful for counselling pregnant women before and during labour.Trial registration numberAgence national de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM): 150099B-22 and IDRCB: 2014-A01920-47. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02474745. Pre-result stage.

These clinical practice guidelines from the French National College of Midwives (CNSF) are intended to define the messages and the preventive interventions to be provided to women and co‐parents by the different professionals providing care to women or their children during the perinatal period. These guidelines are divided into 10 sections, corresponding to 4 themes: 1/ the adaptation of maternal behaviors (physical activity, psychoactive agents); 2/ dietary behaviors; 3/ household exposure to toxic substances (household uses, cosmetics); 4/ promotion of child health (breastfeeding, attachment and bonding, screen use, sudden unexplained infant death, and shaken baby syndrome). We suggest a ranking to prioritize the different preventive messages for each period, to take into account professionals’ time constraints.

Background: The benefits of breastfeeding are widely known; however, continuation after returning to work (RTW) is not. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of breastfeeding after RTW. The secondary objectives were to compare the economic statuses between continents. Method: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Base, and Embase were searched until 1 September 2020, and two independent reviewers selected the studies and collated the data. To be included, articles needed to describe our primary outcome, i.e., prevalence of breastfeeding after RTW. Results: We included 14 studies, analyzing 42,820 women. The overall prevalence of breastfeeding after RTW was 25% (95% CI, 21% to 29%), with an important heterogeneity (I2 = 98.6%)—prevalence ranging from 2% to 61%. Stratification by continents and by GDP per capita also showed huge heterogeneity. The Middle East had the weakest total prevalence with 10% (6% to 14%), and Oceania the strongest with 35% (21% to 50%). Despite the prevalence of breastfeeding in general increasing with GDP per capita (<US$5000: 19%, US$5000–30,000: 22%; US$30,000 to 50,000: 25%, >US$50,000 42%), the prevalence of non-exclusive breastfeeding follows more of a U-curve with the lowest and highest GDP per capita having the highest percentages of breastfeeding (<US$5000: 47% and >US$50,000: 50%, versus <28% for all other categories). Conclusion: Breastfeeding after RTW is widely heterogeneous across the world. Despite economic status playing a role in breastfeeding after RTW, cultural aspects seem influential. The lack of data regarding breastfeeding after RTW in most countries demonstrates the strong need of data to inform effective preventive strategies.

The low methodological quality of the studies and the differences between the protocols do not justify a recommendation of a particular pushing technique. Further studies appear necessary to study outcomes with each of these techniques.

the practices of French midwives must become more evidence-based. The development of professional guidelines for midwives in France appears essential. This study also helps to prioritise national training for midwives.

No abstract