NHS cutting cord too early?

[wifflepuss]

Just wondering what peoples thoughts were on this.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/apr/25/cutting-cord-babies-risk-nhs

A bad who has the cord clamped early can loose out on 59% of their red blood cells, massively important for oxygenation. By delaying clamping you ensure they get this, makes a massive difference esp to premature babies who then are less likely to need blood transfusions.

For a baby who is not breathing the umbilical cord whilst pulsating is a lifeline, literally providing oxygen. Hence the equipment to enable resuscitation without clamping the cord.

Yes, I had a managed third stage with delayed clamping.

Actually, thinking about it....baby was delivered, straight onto my chest, I lay there for a bit, cord stopped pulsing within about 3-5 minutes, cord clamped and cut by OH, injection given, placenta out.

I expected the cord to pulse for a lot longer. My LO never suffered from jaundice, and had an APGAR of 9, 9, 9 :D

As I said it seems so important at birth and stresses those out who won't have the option and at the end of the day it does not make much difference when they are older, even if they are iron defficient at 6-8 months. I don't like scare mongering as if it is the B-all and end-all! If you don't do this, it's all over, not at all.

No its not the be all BUT it gives benefits particularly to premature babies who are then less likely to need invasive treatments and blood transfusions etc. That's why its being recommended.

The iron levels are a small thing but the fact that it gives premature babies a higher chance of a positive outcome is important.

I didn't have the option - two instrumental births with PPH.

I'd have preferred delayed clamping. But it certainly isn't the be all and end all, as you're making it out to be. It's like ALL preferences for labour and birth.

Absolutely I agree - if you have complications you need to go down the managed route & it isn't the only thing that matters. The thing that matters too is that you are safe.

This is brilliant. Thanks so much for sharing this... I had no idea about this and am glad that I now know. The article certainly makes a great deal of sense.

Well said Flisspaps.

Sorry, my point was aimed at grants1000 (just to be clear)

I'm even more confused now.
5madthings, if delayed clamping is benefitial to preemies, why did it all go wrong for mine? Don't know if you read my post earlier in the thread, but DD2 was born at 29 weeks and I have been told a 'mistake' meant her cord wasn't clamped at delivery. She was delivered in her bag (does it make a difference is the placenta isn't attached to me?) and needed up losing blood back into the placenta. She needed a transfusion straight away.
After 7 pretty uneventful weeks on the NNU, she is now home. I like to think she'll have no lasting affects from this, but people are advising me to complain. Are you saying that she should have benefited from this and was just unlucky?

maybd the evidence shows that yes it helps prem banies..if you leabe tje cord.to.stop pulsaring eventually he flow.equalises.amd the baby ends up with the blood it needd.

I have nevrr hesrd of too much bloof going back into the placenta and that is not what the studies say.

Maybe it wasnt explained very well to you or maybe your dd experienced an anomoly, i would ask for further explanation as it doesny make sense tbh!

Ultimately the health if mum amd baby are priority and delayed clamping isnt always posdible but for a long time the cord has been clamped immediately just because when actually the evidence is that it is better to have delayed clamping
as lonh as circumstances permit that.

And yed thr placenta not being attached to you may have made a difference, did the placenta abrupt?

Thanks 5.
It IS confusing and thankfully I have a debrief appt soon. All the doctors have been very cagey about the details like they are trying to protect themselves and their colleagues tbh. I got a few more details every time I asked in those first few days after (I then transferred hospitals). I've just been told she was delivered in her sac to the neonatal
Team (in next room). (I've assumed the placenta is in the sac-is it not? ) and that the neonatal doctors then discovered while resuscitating her that she hadn't had her cord clamped an she'd bled out back into the placenta. I remember the midwife rushing back in a calling another over to her and whispering urgently about it. I though she said placenta previa-but that makes no sense? I was later told that the obstetrician doing the csection was from a different hospital who have different policies. She needed an urgent transfusion but touch wood, has had no ill affects.
All the new medical team at the next hospital were amazed and shocked it happened-like it was a major routine thing to miss.

If it is not related to the delayed clamping as discussed on this thread (It certainly wasn't meant to happen) then I'll come back on and update. I don't want to necessarily scare people off something that could potentially be so positive to preemies. Incidentally, my DD has made fantastic progress throughout her short life. I'm constantly told she shouldn't be doing half the things she is. Maybe she did benefit?

I think the reality is we know delayed clamping is good for most babies (although there is a slightly increased risk of PPH for their mothers) but we don't have enough evidence to know whether it is good for premature babies, or those born by cs, or in what circumstances.