Introduction: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and effectiveness of uterine artery embolization (UAE) compared with conventional hysterectomy on refractory postpartum hemorrhage (PPH).Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI), Cochrane Library, and Wanfang database through October 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing the safety and effectiveness of UAE compared with hysterectomy on refractory PPH. The main outcome measures included the blood loss, operating time, hemostatic effective rate, and length of stay.Results: Six RCTs and nine observational studies were included in the meta-analysis, which involved 1142 women with refractory PPH. The results demonstrated that UAE was more beneficial on refractory PPH compared with hysterectomy using four scales: blood loss (WMD 893.39 mL; 95% CI: -1205.65, -581.13; p < .001); operating time (WMD -37.19 minutes; 95% CI: -44.42, -29.96; p < .001); length of stay (WMD -5.36 days; 95% CI: -5.76, -4.97; p < .001), hemostatic effective rate (OR 1.58, 95% CI: 0.80, 3.12, p = .184) .Conclusions: In the present meta-analysis, the positive findings suggest UAE has beneficial effects on refractory PPH. UAE significantly reduced blood loss, shortened the operating time, and length of stay compared with hysterectomy. And there is no difference between the UAE group and hysterectomy group in hemostatic effective rate. However, those findings should be treated with caution because of heterogeneity and potential biases.
Keywords: Uterine artery embolization; hysterectomy; refractory postpartum hemorrhage.