Obstet Gynecol Sci.  2021 Mar;64(2):190-200. 10.5468/ogs.20195.

Summary of clinically diagnosed amniotic fluid embolism cases in Korea and disagreement with 4 criteria proposed for research purpose

• Kim Jh
• Seol HJ
• Seong WJ
• Ryu HM
• Bae JG
• Hong JS
• Yang JI
• Sung JH
• Choi SJ
• Oh Sy
• Roh CR

• KMID: 2513948
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.20195

Abstract

Objective
This study aimed 1) to investigate the clinical characteristics of amniotic fluid embolism (AFE) cases clinically diagnosed by maternal fetal medicine (MFM) specialists in Korea, 2) to check the disagreement with 4 recently proposed criteria by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) for research purpose, and 3) to compare maternal outcomes between cases satisfying all 4 criteria and cases with at least 1 missing criterion.
Methods
This study included 12 patients clinically diagnosed with AFE from 7 referral hospitals in Korea. We collected information, including maternal age, symptoms of AFE, the amount of transfusion, and maternal mortality.
Results
The median maternal age was 33 years (range, 28–40 years). Regarding symptoms, cardiovascular arrest, hypotension, respiratory compromise, clinical coagulopathy, and neurologic signs were observed in 41.7%, 83.3%, 83.3%, 100%, and 66.7% of the cases, respectively. Among the 12 cases, 5 women died and 2 suffered severe neurologic disability, showing an intact survival rate of 41.7%. Disagreement with all 4 criteria proposed by the SMFM was found in 66.7% of the cases, due to the lack of criteria for disseminated intravascular coagulation or strict onset time (<30 minutes after delivery). There was no difference in maternal mortality and the amount of transfusion between cases satisfying all 4 criteria and cases with at least 1 missing criterion.
Conclusion
Two-thirds of clinically confirmed AFE cases did not satisfy all 4 criteria proposed by the SMFM, despite similar rates of maternal mortality with cases satisfying all 4 criteria. Our study suggests that there may be some discrepancy between the clinical diagnosis of AFE and the recent diagnostic criteria proposed by the SMFM for research purpose.

Keyword

Amniotic fluid embolism; Criteria; Diagnosis; Korea

Reference

References

1. Clark SL. Amniotic fluid embolism. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123:337–48.

2. Knight M, Tuffnell D, Brocklehurst P, Spark P, Kurinczuk JJ. UK Obstetric Surveillance System. Incidence and risk factors for amniotic-fluid embolism. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115:910–7.

3. Statistics Korea. Cause of maternal death. Report No. 11-1240000-000652-10. Infant, maternal and perinatal mortality statistics 2017. Daejeon: Statistics Korea;2018. p. 26.

4. Australasian Maternity Outcomes Surveillance System. Amniotic fluid embolism. Sydney: Australasian Maternity Outcomes Surveillance System. c2020. [cited 2016 Jun 9]. Available from: http://www.amoss.com.au/?q1/4content/amniotic-fluid-embolism-afe.

5. UK Obstetric Surveillance System. Amniotic fluid embolism. Oxford: University of Oxford, Old Road Campus;c2020. [cited 2016 Jun 9]. Available from: https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/ukoss/current-surveillance/amf.

6. Hasegawa J, Sekizawa A, Tanaka H, Katsuragi S, Osato K, Murakoshi T, et al. Current status of pregnancy-related maternal mortality in Japan: a report from the Maternal Death Exploratory Committee in Japan. BMJ Open. 2016; 6:e010304.

7. Clark SL, Romero R, Dildy GA, Callaghan WM, Smiley RM, Bracey AW, et al. Proposed diagnostic criteria for the case definition of amniotic fluid embolism in research studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 215:408–12.

8. Bonnet MP, Zlotnik D, Saucedo M, Chassard D, Bouvier-Colle MH, Deneux-Tharaux C, et al. Maternal death due to amniotic fluid embolism: a national study in France. Anesth Analg. 2018; 126:175–82.

9. Stafford IA, Moaddab A, Dildy GA, Klassen M, Belfort MA, Romero R, et al. Evaluation of proposed criteria for research reporting of amniotic fluid embolism. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 220:285–7.

10. Korea Supreme Court. Sentencing of 96da43164. 1997.

11. Busan District Court. Sentencing of 2009gahab15735. 2012.

12. Uijeongbu District Court. Sentencing of 2010gahab5837. 2010.

13. Downes KL, Grantz KL, Shenassa ED. Maternal, labor, delivery, and perinatal outcomes associated with placental abruption: a systematic review. Am J Perinatol. 2017; 34:935–57.

14. Abenhaim HA, Azoulay L, Kramer MS, Leduc L. Incidence and risk factors of amniotic fluid embolisms: a population-based study on 3 million births in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199:49.e1–8.

15. Hasegawa A, Murakoshi T, Otsuki Y, Torii Y. Clinical course of disseminated intravascular coagulopathy-type amniotic fluid embolism: a report of three cases. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016; 42:1881–5.

16. Kanayama N, Tamura N. Amniotic fluid embolism: pathophysiology and new strategies for management. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014; 40:1507–17.

17. Tamura N, Farhana M, Oda T, Itoh H, Kanayama N. Amniotic fluid embolism: pathophysiology from the perspective of pathology. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017; 43:627–32.

18. Tuffnell D, Knight M, Plaat F. Amniotic fluid embolism - an update. Anaesthesia. 2011; 66:3–6.

19. Kobayashi H, Akasaka J, Naruse K, Sado T, Tsunemi T, Niiro E, et al. Comparison of the different definition criteria for the diagnosis of amniotic fluid embolism. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017; 11:QC18–21.

20. Schaap T, Bloemenkamp K, Deneux-Tharaux C, Knight M, Langhoff-Roos J, Sullivan E, et al. INOSS. Defining definitions: a Delphi study to develop a core outcome set for conditions of severe maternal morbidity. BJOG. 2019; 126:394–401.

21. Statistics Korea. Average age for childbirth of maternal. Birth statistics for 2018. Daejeon: Statistics Korea;2018. p. 7.

22. Oh SY. The collapse of infrastructure for childbirth: causes and consequences. J Korean Med Assoc. 2016; 59:417–23.

23. Fitzpatrick KE, van den Akker T, Bloemenkamp KW, Deneux-Tharaux C, Kristufkova A, Li Z, et al. Risk factors, management, and outcomes of amniotic fluid embolism: A multicountry, population-based cohort and nested case-control study. PLoS Med. 2019; 16:e1002962.

24. Chung SH, Seol HJ, Choi YS, Oh SY, Kim A, Bae CW. Changes in the cesarean section rate in Korea (1982–2012) and a review of the associated factors. J Korean Med Sci. 2014; 29:1341–52.

25. Clark SL. New concepts of amniotic fluid embolism: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1990; 45:360–8.

26. Haftel A, Chowdhury YS. Amniotic fluid embolism. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing;2020. [cited 2020 Jul 2]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559107/.

27. Busardò FP, Frati P, Zaami S, Fineschi V. Amniotic fluid embolism pathophysiology suggests the new diagnostic armamentarium: β-tryptase and complement fractions C3–C4 are the indispensable working tools. Int J Mol Sci. 2015; 16:6557–70.

28. Benson MD. A hypothesis regarding complement activation and amniotic fluid embolism. Med Hypotheses. 2007; 68:1019–25.

29. Fineschi V, Riezzo I, Cantatore S, Pomara C, Turillazzi E, Neri M. Complement C3a expression and tryptase degranulation as promising histopathological tests for diagnosing fatal amniotic fluid embolism. Virchows Arch. 2009; 454:283–90.

30. Benson MD. Nonfatal amniotic fluid embolism. Three possible cases and a new clinical definition. Arch Fam Med. 1993; 2:989–94.

31. Sultan P, Seligman K, Carvalho B. Amniotic fluid embolism: update and review. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2016; 29:288–96.