Posted on 07/13/2013 2:11:33 PM PDT by neverdem
Delaying clamping of the umbilical cord after birth benefits newborn babies, according to a systematic review published in The Cochrane Library. The authors found babies' blood and iron levels were healthier when the cord was clamped later. Share This:
In many high income countries, it is standard practice to clamp the umbilical cord connecting mother and baby less than a minute after birth. However, clamping the cord too soon may reduce the amount of blood that passes from mother to baby via the placenta, affecting the baby's iron stores. On the other hand, delayed cord clamping, which is carried out more than a minute after birth, may also slightly increase the risk of jaundice. The World Health Organization now recommends cord clamping between one and three minutes after birth.
The researchers reviewed data from 15 trials involving a total of 3,911 women and their babies. They looked at outcomes for mothers and outcomes for babies separately, and looked at haemoglobin concentrations as an indicator of healthy blood and iron levels. While clamping the cord later made no difference to the risk of maternal haemorrhaging, blood loss or haemoglobin levels, babies were healthier in a number of respects. When cord clamping was delayed, babies had higher haemoglobin levels between one and two days after birth and were less likely to be iron-deficient three to six months after birth. Birth weight was also higher with delayed cord clamping.
"In light of growing evidence that delayed cord clamping increases early haemoglobin concentrations and iron stores in infants, a more liberal approach to delaying clamping of the umbilical cord in healthy babies appears to be warranted," said Philippa Middleton, one of the authors of the review based at the Australian Research Centre for Health of Women and Babies, Robinson Institute at the University of...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
I tried to get my doctor to do this with my babies, but she refused. I did my research.
Known for quite a while in ‘alternative’ circles, but doctors won’t listen for the most part. Can’t take a couple minutes out of their busy schedule for a request from a mother who has educated herself.
Several years ago I saw a documentary that showed that holding off on cord clamping for one minute after birth could give the baby up to an extra cup of blood. That is a massive amount of blood in a tiny baby.
Why doctors would have a problem with this, I have no idea. So much of this is common sense. There is NO reason to clamp it off immediately.
But here we are, years later... Eyebrows raised over yet ANOTHER study backing common sense.
Why the hell does it take so long for doctors to get with the times?
I recommend reading Methods Of Childbirth by Constance A. Bean for every expectant mother. She details how a lot of unnecessary medical interventions lead directly to caesareans.
More importantly, which procedure might diminish the incidence of jaundice?
Saved my son. Had the cord wrapped around his neck. Monitoring picked it up.
As a matter of course the cord blood should be saved and stored. Later in life it can be used to help or cure numerous ailments.
"On the other hand, delayed cord clamping, which is carried out more than a minute after birth, may also slightly increase the risk of jaundice."
--snip--
"Clamping the cord later did lead to a slightly higher number of babies needing treatment for jaundice, which is treated by light therapy. 'The benefits of delayed cord clamping need to be weighed against the small additional risk of jaundice in newborns,' said Middleton."
If you have the ultraviolet(?) phototherapy available, the doc might take the risk of jaundice, but docs can be very paranoid about getting sued. Newborn jaundice can cause brain damage called kernicterus.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001559.htm
Monitoring isn’t unnecessary.
I wanted to do that, too, but it was cost-prohibitive in 1994.
I knew there had to be another side.
Then for son #2 her doctor talked her into having a VBAC Vaginal Birth After C section which was a fad 18 years ago. It went just fine (easy for me to say) but a few years later the stories about how dangerous VBACs are started coming out.
It’s still cost prohibitive. I’m pregnant with number three, and probably the last, and it’s tempting. However, $2K as the initial cost and a couple hundred a year storage fee is just too much.
VBACs are not a fad. They are done routinely. There was a dip in the rates for several years, due to fear of lawsuits. It’s well-documented that the birth process has benefits for the baby, including lower incidences of respiratory problems over their lifetime, and not having repeated c-sections, if possible, is better for the mother.
This makes sense the placenta is very nourishing...
Bacterial molecules may prevent inflammatory bowel disease
What and when babies first eat may affect diabetes risk
The Rehabilitation of an Old Emotion: A New Science of Nostalgia
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
That pricing is nuts and totally out of line with the actual costs. It is likely driven by the monopoly situation you’re in. I wonder if this could be negotiated in advance and the cost driven down or a private agency engaged to manage the cord?
Did you know that in nearly all states by law you cannot open a hospital within so many miles of another hospital? Hospitals are crony capitalists and they’ve achieved a geographical monopoly. Most zoning codes are very prohibitive of doctors and medical professionals as well.
The bad news is that you can overload the child's lungs if too much blood drains back into the body, leading to pulmonary edema.
Article on cord clamping here
summary: Well, it sounds good, but we don't have studies to prove it.
The COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS has a pretty good reputation.
If I lived in a country with a significant incidence of iron deficiency anemia in infants, I'd use this meta-analysis to apply for a grant from the Gates Foundation, other charities, the World Health Organization, etc., to fund at least two randomized, controlled trials.
The original press release at ScienceDaily linked the abstract. Thanks for your link.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.