ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03404375Updated Feb 25, 2021Results posted

Validating a New Method to Assess Estimated Blood Loss in the Obstetric Population

An interventional study of Gauss Triton system in Pregnancy Complications, sponsored by The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to female participants aged 18 Years to 50 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-02-25.

Sponsored by The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic

Help build ClinicalTrials.gg — short surveys, remote interviews or testing, in your language. Take part →

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
242
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
18 Years to 50 Years
Sex
Female
01

Where this study stands

Counted across the records on this site · 2026-11-13

Among 127 studies in Pregnancy Complications with a site in United States — 39 open to participants now, 47 under way, 1 of them phase 3. Pregnancy Complications · United States.

Enrollment
22nd of 66
242 · median 96
Started
2018
with 8 others
No phase
45 of 127
16 open now
Registered
37th of 127
by date

Among the 127 studies in Pregnancy Complications with a site in United States, this one is the 22nd largest by enrollment of the 66 interventional ones that give a count, is one of 9 that started in 2018, is one of 45 with no phase, and was the 37th registered.

Pregnancy Complications

411 studies on the registry are indexed under Pregnancy Complications; 113 are open to participants now.

Browse Pregnancy Complications studies →

Open to participants now

39 of the 127 studies in Pregnancy Complications with a site in United States are open now. Recruiting first, the newest first:

34 more — sign in →

All 39 open studies →

A study can be open while its sites in United States have not opened yet or have stopped. Only those recruiting at a site in United States →

Who these studies take

Of the 92 Pregnancy Complications studies recruiting now, 44 (48%) set no upper age limit and 45 (49%) stop at 75 or younger; 22 take children under 18; 35 take healthy volunteers.

This study: 18 Years to 50 Years · female · healthy volunteers too.

The full table on the hub →

This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.

Was this useful?
Watch this landscapeDownload CSVNarrow it in search →With an account: a weekly mail of what changed among 127 studies in Pregnancy Complications with a site in United States, or all of them as a file.
02

Study summary

Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality in low-income countries and the primary cause of nearly one quarter of all maternal deaths globally. Estimates of blood loss at delivery are notoriously inaccurate, with under-estimation more common than over-estimation. Traditionally, the surgeon performing the cesarean section would estimate the blood loss by visually assessing the blood collected in the surgical drape and counting the number of lap sponges used thru out the procedure. The investigators would like to study and validate an FDA approved device called the gauss Triton device used to estimate blood loss during scheduled cesarean sections.

Read the detailed description

According to the World Health Organization, postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality in low-income countries and the primary cause of nearly one quarter of all maternal deaths globally. An estimated blood loss (EBL) in excess of 500 mL following a vaginal birth or a loss of greater than 1,000 mL following cesarean birth often have been used for the definition of postpartum hemorrhage, but the average volume of blood lost at delivery can approach these amounts when actually measured rather than estimated. More than half of all maternal deaths occur within 24 hours of delivery, most commonly from excessive bleeding. Worldwide, 140,000 women succumb to postpartum hemorrhage each year. The most common antecedents to postpartum hemorrhage are uterine atony, placental disorders, and trauma during delivery. Improving maternal health worldwide is one of the WHO's 8 Millennium Developmental Goals. The prevention and treatment of PPH is an essential step towards the achievement of that goal.

Estimates of blood loss at delivery are notoriously inaccurate, with under-estimation more common than over-estimation. Traditionally, the surgeon performing the cesarean section would estimate the blood loss by visually assessing the blood collected in the surgical drape and counting the number of lap sponges used thru out the procedure. Current detection and management of hemorrhage is heavily based on clinical judgment, which often leads to delay in recognition and intervention. Often, interventions such as fluid resuscitation and blood transfusion are not initiated until significant hemorrhage has already taken place. The traditional method for estimating blood loss is based on the surgeon and surgical staff's subjective assessment that is severely limited by human error and the presence of large volumes of amniotic fluid, irrigation, or both. Another limitation is that blood loss is frequently estimated at the end of the procedure.

Early detection and treatment of this potentially life threatening obstetric complication is of utmost importance in the field of obstetrics. Simulations and didactic training have been shown to improve visual estimations, but there are still poor associations between experience level and accuracy, and a significant decay in blood loss estimation skills over time.

The Triton system (Gauss Surgical, Inc., Palo Alto, CA) is a novel mobile monitoring platform that combines mobile computing with Gauss Feature Extraction Technology (FET) to directly assess Hb mass (mHb) absorbed by surgical sponges from an image. The device is an iPad like imaging device that will assess blood loss via imaging of the surgical sponges used in the surgery. In 2014, Konig at al. showed that mobile blood loss monitoring using the Triton system is accurate in assessing mHb on surgical sponges across a range of ambient light conditions, sponge saturation, saline contamination, and initial blood Hb. Utilization of this tool could significantly improve the accuracy of blood loss estimates. Holmes et al. also showed that the novel mobile monitoring system provides an accurate measurement of mHb on surgical sponges as compared with manual rinsing measurements, and is significantly more accurate than the gravimetric method.

However, these studies were performed on patients undergoing a myriad of surgical procedures not just limited to obstetrical patients. To the investigators' knowledge, this technology has not been validated in the obstetrical population at risk for hemorrhage.

The gauss/triton colorimetric system is not standard of care at UTMB. Not enough data is available to support its use, despite being FDA approved to estimate blood loss. Most evidence is available in non-pregnant patients. In the obstetric population no definitive evidence exists, and the only trial that has been performed was recently published in AJP reports. In that trial, only the accuracy was evaluated, and the investigators believe that further evidence is needed to support its use.

The investigators' hypothesis is that this device will enable clinicians to prospectively and objectively assess EBL. Ultimately after its validation, their results will be used to propose a multicenter clinical trial to the NICHD MFMU network to evaluate the clinical utility of this system.

This study will be a prospective cohort study, in which the investigators will evaluate two methods of evaluating intraoperative blood loss during cesarean delivery (usual clinical assessment versus Device). Of note, the subjects consented will be used as self-controls. Patients who are scheduled for an elective cesarean and meet criteria for inclusion in the study will be approached for participation at same day of admission. Written informed consent will be obtained from the patients. If patients agree to participate, a CBC (complete blood count) will be obtained via venous puncture. The device will be used during the delivery in the operating room. The device will be used to assess EBL by the research staff only and results/ EBL assessment will be masked to the clinical team. Unmasking will only occur after collecting the data from the device with purpose to perform data analysis. Patient management will be according to the clinical team. All patients undergo a CBC postpartum. The drop in Hgb (ΔHgb) between the pre and post cesarean CBCs will be calculated for each patient. Patients will be divided into quartiles of ΔHgb. Cases will be those patients whose ΔHgb is in the upper quartile, while controls will be those patients whose ΔHgb is in the lower 3 quartiles. The investigators will be comparing EBL by standard clinical assessment versus result from the device between cases and controls.

03

Conditions studied

  • Pregnancy Complications

Keywords

  • scheduled cesarean section
  • term pregnancy
  • estimated blood loss
  • postpartum hemorrhage
04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 50 Years
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Pregnant women between the ages of 18-50
  • Scheduled cesarean delivery

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Incarcerated patients
  • Patient unwilling or unable to provide consent
  • Intrauterine fetal demise (no fetal heart beat identified and documented by two physicians)
  • Placenta previa or other known placental anomalies
  • Enrolled in another trial that may affect outcome.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Diagnostic
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
242 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Other
    Term patients

    This study only has one arm: term pregnant patients scheduled for cesarean sections. The surgeon will clinically estimate blood loss and the research team will estimate blood loss using the Gauss Triton system. This will be done on all 242 patients.

    Device: Gauss Triton system

Interventions

  • DeviceGauss Triton system

    The Triton system (Gauss Surgical, Inc., Palo Alto, CA) is a novel mobile monitoring platform that combines mobile computing with Gauss Feature Extraction Technology (FET) to directly assess Hb mass (mHb) absorbed by surgical sponges from an image. The device is an iPad like imaging device that will assess blood loss via imaging of the surgical sponges used in the surgery. The device will be used to calculate blood loss on every patient enrolled in the study.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Clinical Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) Between Cases and Controls Using Clinical Estimate Versus Device Assessment

    The investigators are looking at the difference between the EBL measured clinically and the EBL measured using the Gauss device

    Time frame: 48 hours

  2. Triton Device Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) Between Cases and Controls Using Clinical Estimate Versus Device Assessment

    The investigators are looking at the difference between the EBL measured clinically and the EBL measured using the Gauss device (Triton)

    Time frame: 48 hours

Secondary outcomes

  1. Transfusion Requirements

    Number of participants that received blood transfusion

    Time frame: 48 hours

  2. Number of Participants With Post-partum Hemorrhage

    the number of cases of post partum hemorrhage

    Time frame: 48 hours

07

Results

Posted Feb 25, 2021

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneCasesControl
Started70172
Completed70172
Not completed00

Outcome measures

PrimaryClinical Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) Between Cases and Controls Using Clinical Estimate Versus Device Assessment

The investigators are looking at the difference between the EBL measured clinically and the EBL measured using the Gauss device

Time frame:
48 hours
Reported as:
Median · milliLiters
Clinical Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) Between Cases and Controls Using Clinical Estimate Versus Device Assessment
milliLitersCasesControl
Clinical Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) Between Cases and Controls Using Clinical Estimate Versus Device Assessment800 (700 to 900)800 (600 to 900)
SecondaryTransfusion Requirements

Number of participants that received blood transfusion

Time frame:
48 hours
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Transfusion Requirements
ParticipantsCasesControl
Transfusion Requirements01
SecondaryNumber of Participants With Post-partum Hemorrhage

the number of cases of post partum hemorrhage

Time frame:
48 hours
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number of Participants With Post-partum Hemorrhage
ParticipantsCasesControl
Number of Participants With Post-partum Hemorrhage811
PrimaryTriton Device Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) Between Cases and Controls Using Clinical Estimate Versus Device Assessment

The investigators are looking at the difference between the EBL measured clinically and the EBL measured using the Gauss device (Triton)

Time frame:
48 hours
Reported as:
Median · milliLiters
Triton Device Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) Between Cases and Controls Using Clinical Estimate Versus Device Assessment
milliLitersCasesControl
Triton Device Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) Between Cases and Controls Using Clinical Estimate Versus Device Assessment474 (300 to 642)331 (222 to 469)

Adverse events

Collected over 9 months. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Cases0/70 (0%)0/70 (0%)8/70 (11.4%)
Control0/172 (0%)0/172 (0%)11/172 (6.4%)
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventCasesControl
Post Partum HemorrhageBlood and lymphatic system disorders8/7011/172

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)CasesControlTotal
Median30 (27 to 35)29 (25 to 34)29 (25 to 35)
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)CasesControlTotal
Female70172242
Male000
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)CasesControlTotal
Hispanic or Latino266995
Not Hispanic or Latino44103147
Unknown or Not Reported000
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)CasesControlTotal
United States70172242
08

Study locations

1 site
  • University of Texas Medical Branch
    Galveston, Texas 77555, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Saoud F, Stone A, Nutter A, Hankins GD, Saade GR, Saad AF. Validation of a new method to assess estimated blood loss in the obstetric population undergoing cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Sep;221(3):267.e1-267.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.06.022. Epub 2019 Jun 20. PubMed 31229429 ↗

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

10

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Ran from Mar 2018 to primary completion in Nov 2018, 8 months.

Results were first posted in Feb 2021, 2 years 3 months after primary completion.

Of 119 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Pregnancy Complications, half reached primary completion within 26 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 12 and three quarters within 48. This study's 8 months is below that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 119 studies reached it within 26 months; a quarter within 12 and three quarters within 48.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Dec 8, 2017
First posted
Jan 19, 2018
StartActual
Mar 1, 2018
Primary completionActual
Nov 1, 2018
CompletionActual
Dec 1, 2018
Results first posted
Feb 25, 2021
Last update
Feb 25, 2021
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Feb 25, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03404375
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jan 19, 2018
Start date
Mar 1, 2018
Primary completion
Nov 1, 2018
Completion
Dec 1, 2018
Results posted
Feb 25, 2021
Last update
Feb 25, 2021

Study contacts

Fawzi Saoud, MD
principal investigator · UTMB-Galveston

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jan 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion