Waiting for cord to stop pulsating before clamped & cut - page 2
Hi, I was just wondering... I keep reading about waiting for the cord to stop pulsating before it is clamped & cut and how this is a good thing. I never saw this being done in my rotation (I didn't... Read More
Jul 16, '04Was reading a thread on another OB message board and RN there was doing her thesis on cord clamping and to date had found no research based evidence of polycythemia or jaundice increasing with delayed cord clamping.
Jul 16, '04I guess all I personally have to say to that is that the RN probably felt there was not and tailored her research ( like pollsters tailor polls) along the line of her beliefs OR, giving him or her the benefit of the doubt, I place that right along the non supported evidence that it isn't busier or nuttier during a full moon or high tide, that younger patients don't often deliver quicker or that certain characteristics don't add to pp hemorrhage or quicker labor. Interesting for her thesis but not so in my 15 plus years of experience with people doing such a thing...Thanks for the input though...
Jul 16, '04a crit of 18??????????????????????wow that is dramatic......
I agree about the opinion that research/results of polls can be tailored to favor one's beliefs. It is done all time, politics being the biggest example I can think of.....
Jul 16, '04Maybe feto-maternal transfusion was involved, in that case?
We have had babies with H&H's as low as 3 & 8. Not good!
Jul 18, '04I was on vacation and heard the whole scoop...seems that while Junior was attached to Mommy the familly was all holding him and passing him around above Mommy...oh geez Gravity is a wonderful thing..NOT! He is doing fine...off O's and nursing like a champ...going home tomorrow. He was pretty stressed to say the least!
Jul 18, '04Whenever I have a patient request this, I give them all of the information (as many have stated already) about too much blood, polycythemia etc, and most haven't heard anything about that side of it! I explain it like this-Mother Nature knew what she was doing, the baby/placenta have more blood than necessary because naturally some of the blood will stay in the cord and placenta and the baby doesn't need all of that blood. After explaining this to them, I (by I, I mean their doctor) honor their decision.
Jul 18, '04i think u all need 2 know that, in fact there has been a study done about this. it is not just a "passing trend" there is a good thing about this.
[font=courier new]how the cord clamp injures your baby's brain
(u can read this whole article at:
[font=courier new]by george m. morley, m.b., ch. b., facog cordclamping.com
a major error in modern obstetrical practice is routine premature clamping of the umbilical cord. some sections require medical knowledge for full comprehension and the language is very technical, but overall, medical jargon is avoided or explained in terms that most expectant parents can understand.
the error was defined very clearly over 200 years ago:
"another thing very injurious to the child, is the tying and cutting of the navel string too soon; which should always be left till the child has not only repeatedly breathed but till all pulsation in the cord ceases. as otherwise the child is much weaker than it ought to be, a portion of the blood being left in the placenta, which ought to have been in the child."
-erasmus darwin, (charles darwin's grandfather) zoonomia, 1801
(even darwin knew that early clamping was bad)
other good info:
immediate umbilical cord clamping as a cause of autism[font=courier new]
have fun reading!!!!!
future bsn student
Jul 18, '04The second is only a hypothesis and not yet supported by research. The author hypothesizes that ICC causes hypovolemia and hypoxia. We know by lab results and clinical experience that the vast majority of babies are NOT asphyxiated despite having their cords clamped immediately.
Jul 18, '04Quote from fergus51That's fine, I just wanted others to know that there is some research being done on this. I am glad that u took the time to read these both. That makes me happy in its self to know that someone read it.The second is only a hypothesis and not yet supported by research. The author hypothesizes that ICC causes hypovolemia and hypoxia. We know by lab results and clinical experience that the vast majority of babies are NOT asphyxiated despite having their cords clamped immediately.
Thanks for the imput!
Jul 19, '04Interesting reading...but if it were true, we'd have a whole unit of asphyxiated gorked out kiddos.
Jul 19, '04I think the problem with a lot of studies, and autistic studies in particular is that they are retrospective and think corelation and causation are the same thing. "Rates of autism have increased in the last 30 years. ICC has increased in the last 30 years. ICC must cause autism!" (despite there being no evidence of it, same thing done with immunizations). It's like saying television watching has increased in the last 30 years, so television is to blame! It wouldn't bother me if I didn't see the harm these studies sometimes cause. I know several parents who chose not to immunize because of the autism hype. Then when we had a whooping cough outbreak, their kids were sick and the parents were in terrible shape.
Jul 20, '04Neither did I, but according to this docs stats, for every newborn or preemie that is clamped early he/she should by all means be oxygen deprived. He also stated that if you leave the cord, you can "cure" RDS, which we all know you can't without surfactant. We are also seeing a climb in the autistic, Aspergers, etc because we are more in tune with these kids...before they were just labeled difficult. I agree with Fergus, correlation and causation aren't one in the same.