Saturday, December 19, 2009

The Hidden Risk of Epidurals


The Hidden Risk of Epidurals
http://www.mothering.com/pregnancy-birth/the-hidden-risk-of-epidurals
A common intervention, epidurals are given to reduce pain during birth. But at what cost? A leading Australian physician discusses how this invasive procedure actually impedes labor and harms both mother and baby. Adapted from the book Gentle Birth, Gentle Mothering; The wisdom and science of gentle choices in pregnancy, birth, and parenting available from www.sarahjbuckley.com

By Sarah J. Buckley
Issue 133, November/December 2005


The first recorded use of an epidural was in 1885, when New York neurologist J. Leonard Corning injected cocaine into the back of a patient suffering from "spinal weakness and seminal incontinence."1 More than a century later, epidurals have become the most popular method of analgesia, or pain relief, in US birth rooms. In 2002, almost two-thirds of laboring women, including 59 percent of women who had a vaginal birth, reported that they were administered an epidural.2 In Canada in 2001-2002, around half of women who birthed vaginally used an epidural,3 and in the UK in 2003-2004, 21 percent of women had an epidural before or during delivery.4

Epidurals involve the injection of a local anesthetic drug (derived from cocaine) into the epidural space"hthe space around (epi) the tough coverings (dura) that protect the spinal cord. A conventional epidural will numb or block both the sensory and motor nerves as they exit from the spinal cord, giving very effective pain relief for labor but making the recipient unable to move the lower part of her body. In the last five to ten years, epidurals have been developed with lower concentrations of local anesthetic drugs, and with combinations of local anesthetics and opiate painkillers (drugs similar to morphine and meperidine) to reduce the motor block. They produce a so-called walking epidural. Spinal analgesia has also been increasingly used in labor to reduce the motor block. Spinals involve drugs injected right through the dura and into the spinal (intrathecal) space, and they produce only short-term analgesia. To prolong the pain-relieving effect for labor, epidurals are now being coadministered with spinals, as a combined spinal epidural (CSE).

Epidurals and spinals offer laboring women the most effective form of pain relief available, and women who have used these analgesics rate their satisfaction with pain relief as very high. However, satisfaction with pain relief does not equate with overall satisfaction with birth,5 and epidurals are associated with major disruptions to the processes of birth. These disruptions can interfere with a woman's ultimate enjoyment of and satisfaction with her labor experience, and they may also compromise the safety of birth for the mother and baby.

Epidurals and Labor Hormones
Epidurals significantly interfere with some of the major hormones of labor and birth, which may explain their negative effect on the processes of labor.6 As the World Health Organization comments, "epidural analgesia is one of the most striking examples of the medicalization of normal birth, transforming a physiological event into a medical procedure."7

For example, oxytocin, known as the hormone of love, is also a natural uterotonic"ha substance that causes a woman's uterus to contract in labor. Epidurals lower the mother's release of oxytocin8 or stop its normal rise during labor.9 The effect of spinals on oxytocin release is even more marked.10 Epidurals also obliterate the maternal oxytocin peak that occurs at birth11"hthe highest of a mother's lifetime"hwhich catalyzes the final powerful contractions of labor and helps mother and baby fall in love at first meeting. Another important uterotonic hormone, prostaglandin F2 alpha, is also reduced in women using an epidural.12

Beta-endorphin is the stress hormone that builds up in a natural labor to help the laboring woman transcend pain. Beta-endorphin is also associated with the altered state of consciousness that is normal in labor. Being "on another planet" as some describe it, helps the mother-to-be to work instinctively with her body and her baby, often using movement and sounds. Epidurals reduce the laboring woman's release of beta-endorphin.13, 14 Perhaps the widespread use of epidurals reflects our difficulty with supporting women in this altered state, and our cultural preference for laboring women to be quiet and acquiescent.



Adrenaline and noradrenaline (epinephrine and norepinephrine, collectively known as catecholamines, or CAs) are also released under stressful conditions, and levels naturally increase during an unmedicated labor.15 At the end of an undisturbed labor, a natural surge in these hormones gives the mother the energy to push her baby out and makes her excited and fully alert at first meeting with her baby. This surge is known as the fetal ejection reflex.16

However, labor is inhibited by very high CA levels, which may result when the laboring woman feels hungry, cold, fearful, or unsafe.17 This response makes evolutionary sense: If the mother senses danger, her hormones will slow or stop labor and give her time to flee to find a safer place to birth.

Epidurals reduce the laboring woman's release of CAs, which may be helpful if high levels are inhibiting her labor. However, a reduction in the final CA surge may contribute to the difficulty that women laboring with an epidural can experience in pushing out their babies, and to the increased risk of instrumental delivery (forceps and vacuum) that accompanies the use of an epidural (see below).

Effects on the Process of Labor
Epidurals slow labor, possibly through the above effects on the laboring woman's oxytocin release, although there is also evidence from animal research that the local anesthetics used in epidurals may inhibit contractions by directly affecting the muscle of the uterus.18 On average, the first stage of labor is 26 minutes longer in women who use an epidural, and the second, pushing stage is 15 minutes longer.19 Loss of the final oxytocin peak probably also contributes to the doubled risk of an instrumental delivery"hvacuum or forceps"hfor women who use an epidural,20 although other mechanisms may be involved.

For example, an epidural also numbs the laboring woman's pelvic floor muscles, which are important in guiding her baby's head into a good position for birth. When an epidural is in place, the baby is four times more likely to be persistently posterior (POP, or face up) in the final stages of labor"h13 percent compared to 3 percent for women without an epidural, according to one study.21 A POP position decreases the chance of a spontaneous vaginal delivery (SVD); in one study, only 26 percent of first-time mothers (and 57 percent of experienced mothers) with POP babies experienced an SVD; the remaining mothers had an instrumental birth (forceps or vacuum) or a cesarean.22

Anesthetists have hoped that a low-dose or combined spinal epidural would reduce the chances of an instrumental delivery, but the improvement seems to be modest. In one study, the Comparative Obstetric Mobile Epidural Trial (COMET), 37 percent of women with a conventional epidural experienced instrumental births, compared with 29 percent of women using low-dose epidurals and 28 percent of women using combined spinal epidurals.23

For the baby, instrumental delivery can increase the short-term risks of bruising, facial injury, displacement of the skull bones, and cephalohematoma (blood clot under the scalp).24 The risk of intracranial hemorrhage (bleeding inside the brain) was increased in one study by more than four times for babies born by forceps compared to those with spontaneous births,25 although two studies showed no detectable developmental differences for forceps-born children at five years old.26, 27 Another study showed that when women with an epidural had a forceps delivery, the force used by the clinician to deliver the baby was almost twice the force used when an epidural was not in place.28

Epidurals also increase the need for Pitocin to augment labor, probably due to the negative effect on the laboring woman's own release of oxytocin. Women laboring with an epidural in place are almost three times more likely to be administered Pitocin.29 The combination of epidurals and Pitocin, both of which can cause abnormalities in the fetal heart rate (FHR) that indicate fetal distress, markedly increases the risk of operative delivery (forceps, vacuum, or cesarean delivery). In one Australian survey, about half of first-time mothers who were administered both an epidural and Pitocin had an operative delivery.30

The impact of epidurals on the risk of cesarean is contentious; differing recent reviews suggest no increased risk31 and an increase in risk of 50 percent.32 The risk is probably most significant for women having an epidural with their first baby.33

Note that the studies used to arrive at these conclusions are mostly randomized controlled trials in which the women who agree to participate are randomly assigned to either epidural or nonepidural pain relief. Nonepidural pain relief usually involves the administration of opiates such as meperidine (aka pethidine). Many of these studies are flawed from high rates of crossover"hwomen who were assigned to nonepidurals but who ultimately did have epidurals, and vice versa. Also, noting that there are no true controls"hthat is, women who are not using any form of pain relief"hthese studies cannot tell us anything about the impact of epidurals compared to birth without analgesic drugs.

Epidural Techniques and Side Effects
The drugs used in labor epidurals are powerful enough to numb, and usually paralyze, the mother's lower body, so it is not surprising that there can be significant side effects for mother and baby. These side effects range from minor to life-threatening and depend, to some extent, on the specific drugs used.

Many of the epidural side effects mentioned below are not improved with low-dose or walking epidurals, because women using these techniques may still receive a substantial total dose of local anesthetic, especially when continuous infusions and/or patient-controlled boluses (single large doses) are used.34 The addition of opiate drugs in epidurals or CSEs can create further risks for the mother, such as pruritus (itching) and respiratory depression (see below).

Maternal Side Effects
The most common side effect of epidurals is a drop in blood pressure. This effect is almost universal and is usually preempted by administering IV fluids before placing an epidural. Even with this "preloading" episodes of significant low blood pressure (hypotension) occur for up to half of all women laboring with an epidural,35, 36 especially in the minutes following the administration of a drug bolus. Hypotension can cause complications ranging from feeling faint to cardiac arrest37 and can also affect the baby's blood supply (see below). Hypotension can be treated with more IV fluids and, if severe, with injections of epinephrine (adrenaline).

Other common side effects of epidurals include inability to pass urine (necessitating a urinary catheter) for up to two-thirds of women;38 itching of the skin (pruritus) for up to two-thirds of women administered an opiate drug via epidural;39, 40 shivering for up to one in three women;41 sedation for around one in five women;42 and nausea and vomiting for one in twenty women.43

Epidurals can also cause a rise in temperature in laboring women. Fever over 100.4 F (38 C) during labor is five times more likely overall for women using an epidural;44 this rise in temperature is more common in women having their first babies, and more marked with prolonged exposure to epidurals.45 For example, in one study, 7 percent of first-time mothers laboring with an epidural were feverish after six hours, increasing to 36 percent after 18 hours.46 Maternal fever can have a significant effect on the baby (see below).

Opiate drugs, especially administered as spinals, can cause unexpected breathing difficulties for the mother, which may come on hours after birth and may progress to respiratory arrest. One author comments, "Respiratory depression remains one of the most feared and least predictable complications of intrathecal [spinal] opioids."47

Many observational studies have found an association between epidural use and bleeding after birth (postpartum hemorrhage).48-53 For example, a large UK study found that women were twice as likely to experience postpartum hemorrhaging when they used an epidural in labor.54 This statistic may be related to the increase in instrumental births and perineal trauma (causing bleeding), or may reflect some of the hormonal disruptions mentioned above.

An epidural gives inadequate pain relief for 10 to 15 percent of women,55 and the epidural catheter needs to be reinserted in about 5 percent.56 For around 1 percent of women, the epidural needle punctures the dura (dural tap); this usually causes a severe headache that can last up to six weeks, but can usually be treated by an injection into the epidural space.57, 58

More serious side effects are rare. If epidural drugs are inadvertently injected into the bloodstream, local anesthetics can cause toxic effects such as slurred speech, drowsiness, and, at high doses, convulsions. This error occurs in around one in 2,800 epidural insertions.59 Overall, life-threatening reactions occur for around one in 4,000 women.60-63 Death associated with an obstetric epidural is very rare,64 but it can be caused by cardiac or respiratory arrest, or by an epidural abscess that develops days or weeks afterward.

Later complications include weakness and numbness in 4 to 18 per 10,000 women. Most of these complications resolve spontaneously within three months.65-69 Longer-term or permanent problems can arise from damage to a nerve during epidural placement; from abscess or hematoma (blood clot), which can compress the spinal cord; and from toxic reactions in the covering of the spinal cord, which can lead to paraplegia.70

Side Effects for the Baby
Some of the most significant and well-documented side effects for the unborn baby (fetus) and newborn derive from effects on the mother. These include, as mentioned above, effects on her hormonal orchestration, blood pressure, and temperature regulation. As well, drug levels in the fetus and newborn may be even higher than in the mother,71 which may cause direct toxic effects. For example, epidurals can cause changes in the fetal heart rate (FHR) that indicate that the unborn baby is lacking blood and oxygen. This effect is well known to occur soon after the administration of an epidural (usually within the first 30 minutes), can last for 20 minutes, and is particularly likely following the use of opiate drugs administered via epidural and spinal. Most of these changes in FHR will resolve themselves spontaneously with a change in position. More rarely, they may require drug treatment.72 More severe changes, and the fetal distress they reflect, may require an urgent cesarean.

Note also that the use of opiate drugs for labor analgesia can also cause FHR abnormalities. This process makes the real effects of epidurals on FHR hard to assess because, in almost all randomized trials, epidurals are compared with meperidine or other opiate drugs. One researcher notes that the supine position (lying on the back) may contribute significantly to hypotension and FHR abnormalities when an epidural is in place.73 Another found that the supine position (plus epidural) was associated with a significant decrease in the oxygen supply to the baby's brain (fetal cerebral oxygenation).74

The baby can also be affected by an epidural-induced rise in the laboring mother's temperature. In one large study of first-time mothers, babies born to febrile (feverish) mothers, 97 percent of whom had received epidurals, were more likely than babies born to afebrile mothers to be in poor condition (low Apgar score); have poor tone; require resuscitation (11.5 percent versus 3 percent); or have seizures in the newborn period.75 One researcher noted a tenfold increase in risk of newborn encephalopathy (signs of brain damage) in babies born to febrile mothers.76

Maternal fever in labor can also directly cause problems for the newborn. Because fever can be a sign of infection involving the uterus, babies born to febrile mothers are almost always evaluated for infection (sepsis). Sepsis evaluation involves prolonged separation from the mother, admission to special care, invasive tests, and, most likely, administration of antibiotics until test results are available. In one study of first-time mothers, 34 percent of epidural babies were given a sepsis evaluation compared to 9.8 percent of nonepidural babies.77

Drugs and Toxicity
Every drug that the mother receives in labor will pass through the placenta to her baby, who is more vulnerable to toxic effects. The maximum effects are likely to be at birth and in the hours immediately after, when drug levels are highest.

There are few studies of the condition of epidural babies at birth, and almost all of these compare babies born after epidurals with babies born after exposure to opiate drugs, which are known to cause drowsiness and difficulty with breathing. These studies show little difference between epidural and nonepidural (usually opiate-exposed) babies in terms of Apgar score and umbilical-cord pH, both of which reflect a baby's condition at birth.78 However, a large-population survey from Sweden found that use of an epidural was significantly associated with a low Apgar score at birth.79

There are also reports of newborn drug toxicity from epidural drugs, especially opiates administered via epidural.80 Newborn opiate toxicity seems more likely with higher dose regimes, including those where the mother is able to self-administer extra doses, although there are wide differences in individual newborn sensitivity.81

It is important to note that a newborn baby's ability to process and excrete drugs is much less than an adult's. For example, the half-life (time to reduce drug blood levels by half) for the local anesthetic bupivacaine (Marcaine) is 8.1 hours in the newborn, compared to 2.7 hours in the mother.82 Also, drug blood levels may not accurately reflect the baby's toxic load because drugs may be taken up from the blood and stored in newborn tissues such as the brain and liver,83 from where they are more slowly released.84

A recent review also found higher rates of jaundice for epidural-exposed babies. This result may be related to the increase in instrumental deliveries or to the increased use of Pitocin.85

Neurobehavioral Effects
The effects of epidural drugs on newborn neurobehavior (behavior that reflects brain state) are controversial. Older studies comparing babies exposed to epidurals with babies whose mothers received no drugs have found significant neurobehavioral effects, whereas more recent findings from randomized controlled trials (which, as noted, compare epidural- and opiate-exposed newborns) have found no differences. However, these older studies also used the more comprehensive (and difficult to administer) Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Score (NBAS, devised by pediatricians), whereas more recent tests have used less complex procedures, especially the Neurologic and Adaptive Capacity Score (NACS, devised by anesthesiologists), which aggregates all data into a single figure and which has been criticized as insensitive and unreliable.86-88

For example, all three studies comparing epidural-exposed with unmedicated babies, and using the NBAS, found significant differences between groups:89

Ann Murray et al. compared 15 unmedicated with 40 epidural-exposed babies and found that the epidural babies still had a depressed NBAS score at five days, with particular difficulty controlling their state. Twenty babies whose mothers had received oxytocin as well as an epidural had even more depression of NBAS scores, which may be explained by their higher rates of jaundice. At one month, epidural mothers found their babies "less adaptable, more intense and more bothersome in their behavior." These differences could not be explained by the more difficult deliveries and subsequent maternal-infant separations associated with epidurals.90

Carol Sepkoski et al. compared 20 epidural babies with 20 unmedicated babies, and found less alertness and ability to orient for the first month of life. The epidural mothers spent less time with their babies in the hospital, in direct proportion to the total dose of bupivacaine administered.91 Deborah Rosenblatt et al. tested epidural babies with NBAS over six weeks and found maximal depression on the first day. Although there was some recovery, at three days epidural babies still cried more easily and more often; aspects of this problem ("control of state") persisted for the full six weeks.92

Although these older studies used conventional epidurals, the total dose of bupivacaine administered to the mothers (in these studies, mean doses of 61.6 mg,93 112.7 mg,94 and 119.8 mg,95 respectively) was largely comparable to more recent low-dose studies (for example, 67.5 mg,96 91.1 mg,97 and 101.1 mg98).

These neurobehavioral studies highlight the possible impact of epidurals on newborns and on the evolving mother-infant relationship. In their conclusions, the researchers express concern about "the importance of first encounters with a disorganized baby in shaping maternal expectations and interactive styles."99

Animal Studies
Animal studies suggest that the disruption of maternal hormones caused by epidurals, described above, may also contribute to maternal-infant difficulties. Researchers who administered epidurals to laboring sheep found that the epidural ewes had difficulty bonding to their newborn lambs, especially those in first lambing with an epidural administered early in labor.100

There are no long-term studies of the effects of epidural analgesia on exposed human offspring. However, studies on some of our closest animal relatives give cause for concern. M. S. Golub et al. administered epidural bupivacaine to pregnant rhesus monkeys at term and followed the development of the exposed offspring to age 12 months (equivalent to four years in human offspring). She found that milestone achievement was abnormal in these monkeys: at six to eight weeks they were slow in starting to manipulate, and at ten months the increase in "motor disturbance behaviors" that normally occurs was prolonged.101 The author concludes, "These effects could occur as a result of effects on vulnerable brain processes during a sensitive period, interference with programming of brain development by endogenous [external] agents or alteration in early experiences."102

Breastfeeding
As with neurobehavior, effects on breastfeeding are poorly studied, and more recent randomized controlled trials comparing exposure to epidural and opiate drugs are especially misleading because opiates have a well-recognized negative effect on early breastfeeding behavior and success.103-107

Epidurals may affect the experience and success of breastfeeding through several mechanisms. First, the epidural-exposed baby may have neurobehavioral abnormalities caused by drug exposure that are likely to be maximal in the hours following birth"ha critical time for the initiation of breastfeeding. Recent research has found (rather obviously) that the higher the newborn's neurobehavior score, the higher his or her score for breastfeeding behavior.108

In another study, the baby's breastfeeding abilities, as measured by the Infant Breastfeeding Assessment Tool (IBFAT), were highest among unmedicated babies, lower for babies exposed to epidurals or IV opiates, and lowest for babies exposed to both. Infants with lower scores were weaned earlier, although overall, similar numbers in all groups were breastfeeding at six weeks.109 In other research, babies exposed to epidurals and spinals were more likely to lose weight in the hospital, which may reflect poor feeding efficiency.110 Other research has suggested that newborn breastfeeding behavior and NACS scores may be normal when an ultra-low-dose epidural is used, although even in this study, babies with higher drug levels had lower neurobehavior (NACS) scores at "Ntwo hours.111

Second, epidurals may affect the new mother, making breastfeeding more difficult. This situation is likely if she has experienced a long labor, an instrumental delivery, or separation from her baby, all of which are more likely following an epidural. Hormonal disruptions may also contribute, as oxytocin is a major hormone of breastfeeding.

One study found that babies born after epidurals were less likely to be fully breastfed on hospital discharge; this was a special risk for epidural mothers whose babies did not feed in the first hour after birth.112 A Finnish survey records that 67 percent of women who had labored with an epidural reported partial or full formula feeding in the first 12 weeks compared to 29 percent of nonepidural mothers; epidural mothers were also more likely to report having "not enough milk."113

Two groups of Swedish researchers have looked at the subtle but complex breastfeeding and prebreastfeeding behavior of unmedicated newborns. One group has documented that when placed skin-to-skin on the mother's chest, a newborn can crawl up, find the nipple, and self-attach.114 Newborns affected by opiate drugs in labor or separated from their mothers briefly after birth lose much of this ability. The other Swedish group found that newborns exposed to labor analgesia (mostly opiates, but including some epidurals) were also disorganized in their prefeeding behavior"hnipple massage and licking, and hand sucking"hcompared to unmedicated newborns.115

Satisfaction with Birth
Obstetric care providers have assumed that control of pain is the foremost concern of laboring women and that effective pain relief will ensure a positive birth experience. In fact, there is evidence that the opposite may be true. Several studies have shown that women who use no labor medication are the most satisfied with their birth experience at the time,116 at six weeks,117 and at one year after the birth.118 In a UK survey of 1,000 women, those who had used epidurals reported the highest levels of pain relief but the lowest levels of satisfaction with the birth, probably because of the higher rates of intervention.

Finally, it is noteworthy that caregiver preferences may to a large extent dictate the use of epidurals and other medical procedures for laboring women. One study found that women under the care of family physicians with a low mean use of epidurals were less likely to receive monitoring and Pitocin, to deliver by cesarean, and to have their babies admitted to newborn special care.119

conclusion
Epidurals have possible benefits but also significant risks for the laboring mother and her baby. These risks are well documented in the medical literature but may not be disclosed to the laboring woman. Women who wish to avoid the use of epidurals are advised to choose caregivers and models of care that promote, support, and understand the principles and practice of natural and undisturbed birth.





NOTES
1. G. R. Hamilton and T. F. Baskett, "In the Arms of Morpheus: The Development of Morphine for Postoperative Pain Relief" Can J Anaesth 47, no. 4 (2000): 367-374.
2. E. Declercq et al., Listening to Mothers: Report of the First National U.S. Survey of Women's Childbearing Experiences (New York: Maternity Center Association, October 2002): 1.
3. Canadian Institute for Health Information, Giving Birth in Canada: A Regional Profile (Ontario: CIHA, 2004):7
4. National Health Service, NHS Maternity Statistics, England: 2003-04 (Crown Copyright, 2005): 6.
5. E. D. Hodnett, "Pain and Women's Satisfaction with the Experience of Childbirth: A Systematic Review" Am J Obstet Gynecol 186, Supplement 5 (2002): S160-S172.
6. S. J. Buckley, "Ecstatic Birth: The Hormonal Blueprint of Labor" Mothering no. 111 (March-April 2002): http://www.mothering.com/articles/pregnancy_birth/birth_preparation/ecstatic.html
7. World Health Organization, Care in Normal Birth: A Practical Guide. Report of a Technical Working Group (Geneva: World Health Organization, 1996): 16.
8. V. A. Rahm et al., "Plasma Oxytocin Levels in Women During Labor With or Without Epidural Analgesia: A Prospective Study" Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 81, no. 11 (November 2002): 1033-1039.
9. R. M. Stocche et al., "Effects of Intrathecal Sufentanil on Plasma Oxytocin and Cortisol Concentrations in Women During the First Stage of Labor" Reg Anesth Pain Med 26, no. 6 (November-December 2001): 545-550.
10. Ibid.
11. C. F. Goodfellow et al., "Oxytocin Deficiency at Delivery with Epidural Analgesia" Br J Obstet Gynaecol 90, no. 3 (March 1983): 214-219.
12. O. Behrens et al., "Effects of Lumbar Epidural Analgesia on Prostaglandin F2 Alpha Release and Oxytocin Secretion During Labor" Prostaglandins 45, no. 3 (March 1993): 285-296.
13. M. Brinsmead et al, "Peripartum Concentrations of Beta Endorphin and Cortisol and Maternal Mood States" Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 25, no. 3 (August 1985): 194-197.
14. G. Bacigalupo et al., "Quantitative Relationships between Pain Intensities during Labor and Beta-endorphin and Cortisol Concentrations in Plasma. Decline of the Hormone Concentrations in the Early Postpartum Period." J Perinat Med 18, no. 4 (1990): 289-296.
15. A. Costa et al., "Adrenocorticotropic Hormone and Catecholamines in Maternal, Umbilical and Neonatal Plasma in Relation to Vaginal Delivery" J Endocrinol Invest 11, no. 10 (November 1988): 703-709.
16. M. Odent, "The Fetus Ejection Reflex" in The Nature of Birth and Breastfeeding (Sydney: Ace Graphics, 1992): 29-43.
17. R. P. Lederman et al., "Anxiety and Epinephrine in Multiparous Women in Labor: Relationship to Duration of Labor and Fetal Heart Rate Pattern" Am J Obstet Gynecol 153, no. 8 (15 December 1985): 870-877.
18. G. Arici et al., "The Effects of Bupivacaine, Ropivacaine and Mepivacaine on the Contractility of Rat Myometrium" Int J Obstet Anesth 13, no. 2 (April 2004): 95-98.
19. B. L. Leighton and S. H. Halpern, "The Effects of Epidural Analgesia on Labor, Maternal, and Neonatal Outcomes: A Systematic Review" Am J Obstet Gynecol 186, Supplement 5 (May 2002): S69-S77.
20. Ibid.
21. E. Lieberman et al., "Changes in Fetal Position During Labor and their Association with Epidural Analgesia" Obstet Gynecol 105, no. 5, Part I (May 2005): 974-982.
22. S. E. Ponkey et al., "Persistent Fetal Occiput Posterior Position: Obstetric Outcomes" Obstet Gynecol 101, no. 5, pt. 1 (May 2003): 915-920.
23. COMET Study Group UK, "Effect of Low-Dose Mobile versus Traditional Epidural Techniques on Mode of Delivery: A Randomised Controlled Trial" The Lancet 358, no. 9275 (7 July 2001): 19-23.
24. J. H. Johnson et al., "Immediate Maternal and Neonatal Effects of Forceps and Vacuum-Assisted Deliveries" Obstet Gynecol 103, no. 3 (March 2004): 513-518.
25. B. S. Jhawar et al., "Risk Factors for Intracranial Hemorrhage Among Full-Term Infants: A Case-Control Study" Neurosurgery 52, no. 3 (March 2003): 581-590 (discussion, 588-590).
26. W. G. McBride et al., "Method of Delivery and Developmental Outcome at Five Years of Age" Med J Aust 1, no. 8 (21 April 1979): 301-304.
27. B. D. Wesley et al., "The Effect of Forceps Delivery on Cognitive Development" Am J Obstet Gynecol 169, no. 5 (November 1993): 1091-1095.
28. S. H. Poggi et al., "Effect of Epidural Anaesthesia on Clinician-Applied Force During Vaginal Delivery" Am J Obstet Gynecol 191, no. 3 (September 2004): 903-906.
29. See Note 19.
30. C. L. Roberts et al., "Rates for Obstetric Intervention Among Private and Public Patients in Australia: Population Based Descriptive Study" Br Med J 321, no. 7254 (15 July 2000): 137-141.
31. See Note 19.
32. E. Lieberman and C. O'Donoghue, "Unintended Effects of Epidural Analgesia During Labor: A Systematic Review" Am J Obstet Gynecol 186, Supplement 5 (May 2002): S31-S68.
33. J. A. Thorp et al., "The Effect of Continuous Epidural Analgesia on Cesarean Section for Dystocia in Nulliparous Women" vAm J Obstet Gynecol 161, no. 3 (September 1989): 670-675.
34. See Note 23.
35. L. M. Goetzl, "Obstetric Analgesia and Anesthesia" ACOG Practice Bulletin, Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetrician-Gynecologists no. 36, Obstet Gynecol 100, no. 1 (July 2002): 177-191.
36. L. J. Mayberry et al., "Epidural Analgesia Side Effects, Co-Interventions, and Care of Women During Childbirth: A Systematic Review" Am J Obstet Gynecol 186, Supplement 5 (2002): S81-S93.
37. D. B. Scott and B. M. Hibbard, "Serious Non-Fatal Complications Associated with Extradural Block in Obstetric Practice" Br J Anaesthv 64, no. 5 (May 1990): 537-541.
38. See Note 36.
39. See Note 35.
40. See Note 36.
41. D. Buggy and J. Gardiner, "The Space Blanket and Shivering During Extradural Analgesia in Labour" vActa Anaesthesiol Scand 39, no. 4 (May 1995): 551-553.
42. See Note 36.
43. Ibid.
44. See Note 19.
45. See Note 32.
46. E. Lieberman et al., "Epidural Analgesia, Intrapartum Fever, and Neonatal Sepsis Evaluation" Pediatrics 99, no. 3 (March 1997): 415-419.
47. P. DeBalli and T. W. Breen, "Intrathecal Opioids for Combined Spinal-Epidural Analgesia During Labour" CNS Drugs 17, no. 12 (2003): 889-904 (892-893).
48. N. S. Saunders et al., "Neonatal and Maternal Morbidity in Relation to the Length of the Second Stage of Labour" Br J Obstet Gynaecol 99, no. 5 (May 1992): 381-385.
49. L. St. George and A. J. Crandon, "Immediate Postpartum Complications" Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 30, no. 1 (February 1990): 52-56.
50.. E. F. Magann et al., "Postpartum Hemorrhage after Vaginal Birth: An Analysis of Risk Factors" South Med J 98, no. 4 (April 2005): 419-422.
51. T. M. Eggebo and L. K. Gjessing, ["Hemorrhage After Vaginal Delivery"], Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 120, no. 24 (10 October 2000): 2860-2863.
52>. B. Ploeckinger et al., "Epidural Anaesthesia in Labour: Influence on Surgical Delivery Rates, Intrapartum Fever and Blood Loss" Gynecol Obstet Invest 39, no. 1 (1995): 24-27.
53. L. Gilbert et al., "Postpartum Haemorrhage: A Continuing Problem" Br J Obstet Gynaecol 94, no. 1 (January 1987): 67-71.
54. See Note 48.
55. See Note 35.
56.M. J. Paech et al., "Complications of Obstetric Epidural Analgesia and Anaesthesia: A Prospective Analysis of 10,995 Cases" Int J Obstet Anesth 7, no. 1 (January 1998): 5-11.
57. P. C. Stride and G. M. Cooper, "Dural Taps Revisited: A 20-Year Survey from Birmingham Maternity Hospital" Anaesthesia 48, no. 3 (March 1993): 247-255.
58. S. N. Costigan and J. S. Sprigge, "Dural Puncture: The Patients' Perspective. A Patient Survey of Cases at a DGH Maternity Unit 1983-1993" Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 40, no. 6 (July 1996): 710-714.
59.. See Note 56.
60. See Note 37.
61. See Note 56.
62. D. B. Scott and M. E. Tunstall, "Serious Complications Associated with Epidural/Spinal Blockade in Obstetrics: A Two-Year Prospective Study" Int J Obstet Anesth 4, no. 3 (July 1995): 133-139.
63. J. S. Crawford, "Some Maternal Complications of Epidural Analgesia for Labour" Anaesthesia 40, no. 12 (December 1985): 1219-1225.
64. F. Reynolds, "Epidural Analgesia in Obstetrics" Br Med J 299, no. 6702 (September 1989): 751-752.
65. See Note 37.
66. See Note 62.
67. See Note 63.
68. See Note 64.
69. MIDIRS and the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, "Epidural Pain Relief During Labour" in Informed Choice for Professionals (Bristol: MIDIRS, 1999): 5.
70. See Note 37.
71. R. Fernando et al., "Neonatal Welfare and Placental Transfer of Fentanyl and Bupivacaine During Ambulatory Combined Spinal Epidural Analgesia for Labour" Anaesthesia 52, no. 6 (June 1997): 517-524.
72. J. Littleford, "Effects on the Fetus and Newborn of Maternal Analgesia and Anesthesia: A Review" Can J Anaesth51, no. 6 (June-July 2004): 586-609.
73. G. Capogna, "Effect of Epidural Analgesia on the Fetal Heart Rate" Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 98, no. 2 (October 2001): 160-164.
74. C. J. Aldrich et al., "The Effect of Maternal Posture on Fetal Cerebral Oxygenation During Labour" Br J Obstet Gynaecol 102, no. 1 (January 1995): 14-19.
75. E. Lieberman et al., "Intrapartum Maternal Fever and Neonatal Outcome" Pediatrics 105, no. 1, pt. 1 (January 2000): 8-13.
76. L. Impey et al., "Fever in Labour and Neonatal Encephalopathy: A Prospective Cohort Study" Br J Obstet Gynaecol 108, no. 6 (June 2001): 594-597.
77. See Note 32.
78. Ibid.
79. K. Thorngren-Jerneck and A. Herbst, "Low 5-Minute Apgar Score: A Population-Based Register Study of 1 Million Term Births" Obstet Gynecol 98, no. 1 (2001): 65-70.
80. M. Kumar and B. Paes, "Epidural Opioid Analgesia and Neonatal Respiratory Depression" J Perinatol 23, no. 5 (July-August 2003): 425-427.
81. Ibid.
82. T. Hale, Medications and Mothers' Milk (Amarillo, TX: Pharmasoft, 1997): 76.
83. See Note 71.
84. T. Hale, "The Effects on Breastfeeding Women of Anaesthetic Medications Used During Labour" The Passage to Motherhood Conference, Brisbane, Australia (1998).
85. See Note 32.
86. W. Camann and T. B. Brazelton, "Use and Abuse of Neonatal Neurobehavioral Testing" Anesthesiology 92, no. 1 (January 2000): 3-5.
87. R. Gaiser, "Neonatal Effects of Labor Analgesia" Int Anesthesiol Clin 40, no. 4 (Fall 2002): 49-65.
88. S. H. Halpern et al., "The Neurologic and Adaptive Capacity Score Is Not a Reliable Method of Newborn Evaluation" Anesthesiology 94, no. 6 (June 2001): 958-962.
89. See Note 32.
90. A. D. Murray et al., "Effects of Epidural Anesthesia on Newborns and their Mothers" Child Dev 52, no. 1 (March 1981): 71-82.
91. C. M. Sepkoski et al., "The Effects of Maternal Epidural Anesthesia on Neonatal Behavior During the First Month" Dev Med Child Neurol 34, no. 12 (December 1992): 1072-1080.
92. D. B. Rosenblatt et al., "The Influence of Maternal Analgesia on Neonatal Behaviour: II. Epidural Bupivacaine" Br J Obstet Gynaecol 88, no. 4 (April 1981): 407-413.
93. See Note 90.
94. See Note 91.
95. See Note 92.
96. See Note 71.
97. J. R. Loftus et al., "Placental Transfer and Neonatal Effects of Epidural Sufentanil and Fentanyl Administered with Bupivacaine During Labor" Anesthesiology 83, no. 3 (1995): 300-308.
98. See Note 23.
99. See Note 90: 71.
100. D. Krehbiel et al., "Peridural Anesthesia Disturbs Maternal Behavior in Primiparous and Multiparous Parturient Ewes" Physiol Behav 40, no. 4 (1987): 463-472.
101. M. S. Golub and S. L. Germann, "Perinatal Bupivacaine and Infant Behavior in Rhesus Monkeys" Neurotoxicol Teratol 20, no. 1 (January-February 1998): 29-41.
102. M. S. Golub, "Labor Analgesia and Infant Brain Development" Pharmacol Biochem Behav 55, no. 4 (1996): 619-628 (619).
103. L. Righard and M. O. Alade, "Effect of Delivery Room Routines on Success of First Breast-Feed" The Lancet 336, no. 8723 (November 1990): 1105-1107.
104. M. K. Matthews, "The Relationship Between Maternal Labour Analgesia and Delay in the Initiation of Breastfeeding in Healthy Neonates in the Early Neonatal Period" Midwifery 5, no. 1 (March 1989): 3-10.
105. A. B. Ransjo-Arvidson et al., "Maternal Analgesia During Labor Disturbs Newborn Behavior: Effects on Breastfeeding, Temperature, and Crying" Birth 28, no. 1 (March 2001): 5-12.
106. E. Nissen et al., "Effects of Maternal Pethidine on Infants Developing Breast Feeding Behaviour" Acta Paediatr 84, no. 2 (February 1995): 140-145.
107. L. Rajan, "The Impact of Obstetric Procedures and Analgesia/Anaesthesia During Labour and Delivery on Breast Feeding" Midwifery 10, no. 2 (June 1994): 87-103.
108. S. Radzyminski, "Neurobehavioral Functioning and Breastfeeding Behavior in the Newborn" J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 34, no. 3 (May-June 2005): 335-341.
109. J. Riordan et al., "The Effect of Labor Pain Relief Medication on Neonatal Suckling and Breastfeeding Duration" J Hum Lact 16, no. 1 (February 2000): 7-12.
110. K. G. Dewey et al., "Risk Factors for Suboptimal Infant Breastfeeding Behavior, Delayed Onset of Lactation, and Excess Neonatal Weight Loss" Pediatrics 112, no. 3, pt. 1 (September 2003): 607-619.
111. S. Radzyminski, "The Effect of Ultra Low Dose Epidural Analgesia on Newborn Breastfeeding Behaviors" J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 32, no. 3 (May-June 2003): 322-331.
112. D. J. Baumgarder et al., "Effect of Labor Epidural Anesthesia on Breast-Feeding of Healthy Full-Term Newborns Delivered Vaginally" J Am Board Fam Pract 16, no. 1 (January-February 2003): 7-13.
113. P. Volmanen et al., "Breast-Feeding Problems After Epidural Analgesia for Labour: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Pain, Obstetrical Procedures and Breast-Feeding Practices" Int J Obstet Anesth 13, no. 1 (2004): 25-29.
114. See Note 103.
115. See Note 105.
116. S. Kannan et al., "Maternal Satisfaction and Pain Control in Women Electing Natural Childbirth" Reg Anesth Pain Medvv 26, no. 5 (September-October 2001): 468-472.
117. J. M. Green et al., "Expectations, Experiences, and Psychological Outcomes of Childbirth: A Prospective Study of 825 Women" Birth 17, no. 1 (March 1990): 15-24.
118. B. M. Morgan et al., "Analgesia and Satisfaction in Childbirth (The Queen Charlotte's 1000 Mother Survey)" The Lancet 2, no. 8302 (9 October 1982): 808-810.
119. M. C. Klein et al., "Epidural Analgesia Use as a Marker for Physician Approach to Birth: Implications for Maternal and Newborn Outcomes" Birth 28, no. 4 (December 2001): 243-248.




Sarah J. Buckley is a family physician, an internationally published writer, and a full-time mother to Emma, Zoe, Jacob, and Maia Rose, all born at home. She is the author of Gentle Birth, Gentle Mothering: The wisdom and science of gentle choices in pregnancy, birth, and parenting, published in early 2006. To read more from Sarah J. Buckley, and to order her book, visit www.sarahjbuckley.com.

Mom fights, gets the delivery she wants


Mom fights, gets the delivery she wants
By Elizabeth Cohen, CNN Senior Medical Correspondent
December 17, 2009 9:17 a.m. EST


(CNN) -- Seven months into her pregnancy with her fourth child, Joy Szabo's obstetrician gave her some news she didn't want to hear: Because she'd had a previous Caesarean section, the hospital where she planned to deliver was insisting she have another one.

Szabo wanted a vaginal delivery, and argued with hospital executives, but they stood firm: They refused to do vaginal births after Caesareans (VBACs) because they have a slightly higher risk for complications.
After they lost that fight, Szabo and her husband, Jeff, made an unusual decision. About three weeks before her due date, Szabo moved nearly six hours away from their home in Page, Arizona, to Phoenix to give birth at a hospital that does permit women to have VBACs.
In the end, the Szabos got the birth they wanted. On December 5, their son Marcus Anthony was born in Phoenix via an uncomplicated vaginal delivery, weighing seven pounds and 13 ounces.
"It was such an easy birth," Szabo says. "I was in the pains of labor for about four or five hours, then I pushed once, and he popped out."

The Szabos' story has a happy ending, but it shows that with the rising C-section rate -- now one in three babies is born via Caesarean -- women who want vaginal births sometimes have to fight to get them.
That fight is especially difficult when the decision to perform a Caesarean is made in the delivery room when there's often not much time to talk and consider all the options.
"It's a tough situation," says Dr. Bruce Flamm, a spokesman for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "Mom is tired. Dad is tired and nervous, and most people haven't spent their lives reading obstetrical textbooks and don't know all the details involved."

Dina Ste. Marie was told she'd need a C-section, but a simple change in position allowed Isabella to come out vaginally.
Dina Ste. Marie, from Whitby, Ontario, remembers a tense moment in the delivery room three years ago when she was in labor with her first child. She'd been eight centimeters dilated for six hours, and the baby wasn't budging.
"We were near the end, but it just wasn't ending," she remembers.
When her obstetrician suggested she might be headed for a C-section, her doula, Stefanie Antunes, remembered a maneuver she'd seen midwives use to get a reluctant baby to come through the birth canal.
"Stefanie said if I laid down flat on my back it might help the baby get in a new position," Ste. Marie says. "I distinctly remember the labor nurse looking at her like she had 10 heads, but she said, 'You can try it if you want.' "
Ste. Marie got on her back, and the baby started moving around. Twenty-five minutes later, her daughter, Isabella, was born.
"It was such a major relief," says Ste. Marie. "I really wanted to avoid a C-section if I could."

Read more Empowered Patient stories
Not every mother wants to avoid a C-section -- in fact, some request them -- but if you do, here are some tips for what to ask your doctor (or midwife) in the delivery room if the suggestion is made that it's time to give up on a vaginal birth and head to the operating room.
Video: How to get the birth you want

1. "Doctor, is this an emergency, or do we have time to talk?"
Sometimes you need a C-section to save your life, your baby's life, or both. In those cases, there's no room for discussion.
Delivery room emergencies include excessive bleeding, a breech position where the baby is headed out foot-first, or when the baby has certain heart rate problems, according to Flamm.
"In these situations, this is not a good time to talk about your desires for a natural birth," Flamm says.

2. "Doctor, what would happen if we waited an hour or two?"
The vast majority of the time, when your doctor or midwife tells you it's time for a C-section, it's not an emergency, Flamm says.
In many cases, women just need more time to labor, he adds. In fact, he says the No. 1 reason for a C-section is "failure to progress" during labor. "If that's what we're talking about, then it's not an emergency," he says.

3. "Doctor, are you sure the baby is too big for me to deliver?"
Sometimes parents are told a baby is too big to deliver vaginally. Dr. Ware Branch, medical director of women and newborns clinical program at Intermountain Healthcare in Utah, says parents should ask whether a C-section is absolutely necessary, especially if labor hasn't advanced very far.
"If it was my wife in labor and she's three or four centimeters dilated and the obstetrician says the baby's head is too big and she can't deliver him, I'd say, 'Nonsense, she hasn't really had a trial of labor, doctor.' "

4. "Doctor, is there something else I can try before having a C-section?"
Antunes, a spokeswoman for DONA International, which certifies doulas, says there may be options such as maneuvers like the one she used on Ste. Marie to get a slow labor moving.

5. "Doctor, can we talk more about the baby's heart rate?"
If you're told you need a C-section because of the baby's heart rate, try to get your doctor or midwife to be as specific as possible.
Some heart-rate problems mean a C-section is necessary immediately, but other types of heart-rate issues are not nearly as serious, and you may be able to labor longer.
"This is a very gray area," says Debbie Levy, a certified nurse midwife in Marietta, Georgia. "It takes years to learn how to read fetal heart tones, and it's not an exact science."
Levy says it can be difficult to ask these questions when the person delivering your baby says it's time for a C-section, especially since mom and dad are often exhausted.
"This is a very tough discussion to have in the delivery room," she says. "You're vulnerable, because you're talking about your baby's well-being."
But she says as long as it's not an emergency, you should have these delivery room conversations with your doctor or midwife.
"You shouldn't be afraid to speak up and say you'd like to try to labor longer," she says.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

2009 H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu) and Feeding your Baby: What Parents Should Know

http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/infantfeeding.htm#
2009 H1N1 Flu (Swine Flu) and Feeding your Baby: What Parents Should Know
October 23, 2009 2:00 PM ET

This document updates previously posted information for parents about infant feeding and 2009 H1N1 flu (swine flu). It now more clearly addresses parents who are formula feeding as well as breastfeeding, suggests that parents sick with 2009 H1N1 flu (swine flu) find someone who is not sick to feed the baby, and provides more detailed strategies for breastfeeding mothers to maintain breastfeeding throughout the course of infection. This document is based on current knowledge of the 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak in the United States, and may be revised as more information becomes available.

What is this new flu virus?
This novel H1N1 flu virus (sometimes called “swine flu”) was first detected in people in April 2009 in the United States. This virus is spreading from person-to-person, probably in much the same way that regular seasonal influenza viruses spread.

What can I do to protect my baby?
Take everyday precautions such as washing your hands with plain soap and water before feeding your baby. If soap and water are not available, use an alcohol-based hand rub* to clean your hands before feeding your baby. See more tips on good health habits for preventing sickness from the flu virus. In addition, try not to cough or sneeze in the baby’s face while feeding your baby, or any other time you and your baby are close. If possible, only family members who are not sick should care for infants. If you are sick and there is no one else to care for your baby, wear a facemask, if available and tolerable, and cover your mouth and nose with a tissue when coughing or sneezing. For more information, see the Interim Recommendations for Facemask and Respirator Use.

Feeding Your Baby
Is it ok to for me to feed my baby if I am sick?
Infants are thought to be at higher risk for severe illness from 2009 H1N1 infection and very little is known about prevention of 2009 H1N1 flu infection in infants. If you are breastfeeding or giving your baby infant formula, a cautious approach would be to protect your baby from exposure to the flu virus in the following ways:

Ask for help from someone who is not sick to feed and care for your baby, if possible.
If there is no one else who can take care of your baby while you are sick, try to wear a face mask at all times when you are feeding or caring for your baby. You should also be very careful about washing your hands and taking everyday precautions to prevent your baby from getting flu. Using a cloth blanket between you and your baby during feedings might also help.
If you are breastfeeding, someone who is not sick can give your baby your expressed milk. Ideally babies less than about 6 months of age should get their feedings from breast milk. It is OK to take medicines to treat the flu while you are breastfeeding.

Does breastfeeding protect babies from this new flu virus?
There are many ways that breastfeeding and breast milk protect babies’ health. Flu can be very serious in young babies. Babies who are not breastfed get sick from infections like the flu more often and more severely than babies who are breastfed.

Since this is a new virus, we don’t know yet about specific protection against it. Mothers pass on protective antibodies to their baby during breastfeeding. Antibodies are a type of protein made by the immune system in the body. Antibodies help fight off infection.

If you are sick with flu and are breastfeeding, someone who is not sick can give your baby your expressed milk.

Should I stop breastfeeding my baby if I think I have come in contact with the flu?
No. Because mothers make antibodies to fight diseases they come in contact with, their milk is custom-made to fight the diseases their babies are exposed to as well. This is really important in young babies when their immune system is still developing. It is OK to take medicines to prevent the flu while you are breastfeeding. You should make sure you wash your hands often and take everyday precautions. However, if you develop symptoms of the flu such as fever, cough, or sore throat, you should ask someone who is not sick to care for your baby. If you become sick, someone who is not sick can give your baby your expressed milk.

Is it okay to take medicine to treat or prevent 2009 H1N1 flu while breastfeeding?
Yes. Mothers who are breastfeeding and taking medicine to treat flu because they are sick should express their breast milk for bottle feedings, which can be given to your baby by someone who is not sick. Mothers who are breastfeeding and are taking medicines to prevent the flu because they have been exposed to the virus should continue to feed their baby at the breast as long as they do not have symptoms of the flu such as fever, cough, or sore throat.

If my baby is sick, is it okay to breastfeed?
Yes. One of the best things you can do for your sick baby is keep breastfeeding.

Do not stop breastfeeding if your baby is sick. Give your baby many chances to breastfeed throughout the illness. Babies who are sick need more fluids than when they are well. The fluid babies get from breast milk is better than anything else, even better than water, juice, or Pedialyte® because it also helps protect your baby’s immune system.
If your baby is too sick to breastfeed, he or she can drink your milk from a cup, bottle, syringe, or eye-dropper.

www.BirthingWisdom.com

Friday, December 4, 2009

Breastfeeding Reduces a Womans Risk of Developing Metabolic Syndrome

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20091203/Breastfeeding-reduces-a-womans-risk-of-developing-Metabolic-Syndrome.aspx

Problems with New Induction Brochure

http://www.thefamilyway.com/home/archives/233

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has published a new consumer brochure on labor induction. Unfortunately, this brochure is poorly written and misleading. One would think from reading the brochure that elective induction is a completely innocuous procedure that is fine for any woman who is “uncomfortable” (their word!) towards the end of her pregnancy. Just recently the National Center for Health Statistics released released a report on the rise of late preterm births in the U.S. and placed part of the blame on obstetric interventions such as induction and scheduled cesarean surgery. When we all should be working together to reduce unnecessary inductions, I am shocked that AHRQ has published such a misleading brochure.
Here are my strong objections to this brochure:
1. Inside Front Cover: Fast Facts – The second fact, “A cesarean section (c-section) might be needed if there are problems with labor. This is true for labor that is induced and for labor that starts on its own” implies that there is no difference between risk of cesarean surgery for those who are induced and those who begin labor on its own. This is misleading.
2. Inside Front Cover: Fast Facts – The fourth fact, “The risk of C-section with elective induction depends on if you have ever had a baby before” is true. However, the more important fact for consumers is that the risk of C-section is doubled for first-time mothers if labor is induced. This fact is conveniently left out.
3. Page 2 – A consumer brochure published by a “scientific” agency of the government should include the fact that misoprostal (Cytotec) has not been approved by the FDA for use in labor and that, in fact, the FDA has issued a strong warning about its use in labor.
4. Page 3 – Under the reasons why someone might not want to induce labor, there should be more information about the risks of iatrogenic prematurity. This pamphlet is written at a low literacy level. Unfortunately, we know that women from lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to delay getting prenatal care. Without an early ultrasound to confirm the due date, there can easily be a 2 to 3 week error in calculating the due date.
There is also no mention of the possible benefits to the baby of allowing labor to begin on its own. Scientists at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School believe that it is the baby who initiates labor once the lungs are fully mature. Neonatalogist Dr. Lucky Jain said at the NIH State-of-the-Science Conference: Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request in March 2006 that:
“In summary, physiologic events in the last few days of pregnancy, coupled with the onset of spontaneous labor, play a critical role in fetal maturation and preparation of the fetus for neonatal transition.” (last paragraph on page 104 of the conference papers)
5. Page 5: Statement of bottom of page – “ Research can’t tell us if any one woman’s chance of having a C-section is different is she chooses to be induced rather than waiting labor to start on its own.” This statement infuriates me. Yes, it’s true (for any one woman), but it minimizes the increased risk of cesarean with an induced labor. Why include this statement unless the intent is to downplay the risks of induction?
6. Page 6 – The statement, “Research shows that inducing labor does not mean that babies have a higher chance for a newborn breathing problem…” is also misleading. According to Dr. Lucky Jain (see #4 above) there are important physiological benefits to the baby in allowing labor to begin on its own. And if the due date is off and the baby is born late pre-term, then there is compelling evidence that the baby is at higher risks for respiratory and other problems.
7. Page 6 – The statement “Research doesn’t have the answers about the effect inducing labor can have on the use of pain medications, length of hospital stay, breastfeeding problems, and problems for the baby during labor” is also misleading. Earlier in the brochure, the authors acknowledge that induced contractions may be stronger and more painful earlier in labor. I don’t think that there is any doubt among healthcare professionals that induced contractions are more painful and that women who are induced are more likely to request epidural analgesia. For the first-time mother whose risk for cesarean is doubled with induction, there is a greater risk for longer hospital stay, breastfeeding problems, and problems for the baby if cesarean surgery is required.
8. Page 8 – Things to Think About: Question: Am I more likely to have a C-section if I have my labor induced? The first line of the answer, “Research can’t tell us if inducing labor makes having a C-section more likely than waiting for labor to start on its own” is untrue for first-time mothers. The second line of the answer, “But your chances of a C-section are higher if you have never had a baby vaginally before” may be a little confusing for some readers and fails to include the important information that the risk for cesarean surgery is doubled for first-time mothers who are induced.
9. Page 8 – Fourth Question: The correct and appropriate answer to “How can I improve my chances of having a vaginal birth?” is to allow labor to begin on its own. This brochure addresses only elective induction!
10. Page 9: Questions to Ask Your Doctor or Midwife – Most of the questions do not provide the information needed to make a true informed decision. None deal with the potential risks of elective induction.
I certainly hope that you will not distribute this brochure in your childbirth classes and that you will consider voicing your own objections to this poor use of taxpayer dollars which has the potential of increasing requests for elective inductions; increasing the risks for unnecessary cesareans; and increasing medical complications for both mothers and babies.

Delayed Cord Clamping Should Be Standard Practice in Obstetrics

http://academicobgyn.com/2009/12/03/delayed-cord-clamping-should-be-standard-practice-in-obstetrics/
Delayed Cord Clamping Should Be Standard Practice in Obstetrics
December 3, 2009Nicholas FogelsonLeave a commentGo to comments
There are times in our medical careers where we see a shift in thought that leads to a completely different way of doing things. This happened with episiotomy in the last few decades. Most recently trained physicians cannot imagine doing routine episiotomy with every delivery, yet it was not so long ago that this was common practice.

Episiotomy was supported in Medline indexed publications as early as the 1920s(1), and many publications followed in support of this procedure. But by as early as the 1940s, publications began to appear that argued that episiotomy was not such a good thing(2). Over the years the mix of publications changed, now the vast majority of recent publications on episiotomy focus on the problems with the procedure, and lament why older physicians are still doing them (3) (4). And over all this time, practice began to change.

It took a long time for this change to occur, and a lot of data had to accumulate and be absorbed by young inquisitive minds before we got to where we are today, with the majority of recently trained OBs and midwives now reserving episiotomy only for rare indicated situations.

Though this change in episiotomy seems behind us, there are many changes that are ahead of us. One of these changes, I believe, is in the way obstetricians handle the timing of cord clamping.


For the majority of my career, I routinely clamped and cut the umbilical cord as soon as it was reasonable. Occasionally a patient would want me to wait to clamp and cut for some arbitrary amount of time, and I would wait, but in my mind this was just humoring the patient and keeping good relations. After all, I had seen all my attendings and upper level residents clamp and cut right away, so it must be the right thing, right?

Later in my career I was exposed to enough other-thinking minds to consider that maybe this practice was not right. And after some research I found that there was some pretty compelling evidence that indeed, early clamping is harmful for the baby. So much evidence in fact, that I am a bit surprised that as a community, OBs in the US have not developed a culture of delayed routine cord clamping for neonatal benefit.

I think that this is a part of our culture that should change. This evidence is compelling enough that I feel like a real effort should be made in this regard. So to do my part in this, I am blogging about it.

As this is Academic OB/GYN, of course I am going to lay out this evidence I speak of. But before I do that, I want to present some logical ideas under which this evidence ought to be considered.

Prior to the advent of medical delivery, and for all time in animals, it has been the natural way of things for a baby to stay on the umbilical cord for a significant period of time after delivery. Depending on culture and situation, the delay in cord separation could be a few minutes or even a few hours. In some cultures the placenta is left on for days, which of course I find excessive and gross (5). But whatever the culture and time on cord, the absence of immediate cord clamping allows fetal blood that was previously in the placenta to transfuse back into the baby. Studies have demonstrated that a delay of as little as thirty seconds between delivery and cord clamping can result in 20-40 ml*kg-1 of blood entering the fetus from the placenta (6).

Considering this data, I have to think about evolution and function. I am a strong believer in evolution, but even under creationist thinking I have to believe that if the system meant for babies to have been phlebotomized of 50-100 cc of blood at birth, we would have been born with higher hemoglobins. Clearly the natural way of things is for this not to happen.

So does this mean that early cord clamping is necessarily harmful? Absolutely not. But what it means is that the burden of proof is on us to prove that early cord clamping, which amounts to planned fetal phlebotomy, is a beneficial thing. Otherwise, all things being equal we ought to give the tykes a few minutes to soak up what blood they can from the placenta before we cut’em off.

So the question is whether or not there is strong data either way.

It is easy to imagine a randomized study of immediate vs. delayed cord clamping, with quantitative analysis of fetal lab values and clinical outcomes. So easy in fact, that it has been done many times – and in just about every study, there is a clear benefit to delaying cord clamping, even if it is just for 30 seconds after delivery. These benefits include important outcomes such as decreased rates of intraventricular hemorrhage and necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm neonates. Furthermore, aside from some intermittent reports of clinically insignificant polycythemia and hyperbilirubinemia in term infants, there appears to be no harm that can be linked to delayed cord clamping. It feels like being a doctor 10-15 years ago looking to see if there is any data about episiotomy, and finding that there’s a lot, and it says we’ve been doing it wrong for awhile now.

So here’s the data:

Delayed cord clamping in very preterm infants reduces the incidence of intraventricular hemorrhage and late-onset sepsis: a randomized, controlled trial(7)

Randomized 72 VLBW infants (< 1500 grams) to immediate or delayed cord clamping (5-10 vs. 30-45 seconds). Delayed cord clamp infants had significantly less IVH (5/36 in delayed group vs. 13/36 in immediate group, p = 0.03) and less late onset sepsis (1/36 vs. 8/36, p = 0.03).

The Influence of the Timing of Cord Clamping on Postnatal Cerebral Oxygenation in Preterm Neonates: A Randomized, Controlled Trial (8)

Randomized 39 preterm infants to immediate clamping vs. 60-90 second delay, and examined fetal brain blood flow and tissue oxygenation. Results showed similar blood flow between groups, but increased tissue oxygenation in the delayed group and 4 and 24 hours after birth.

Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping on iron status in Mexican infants: a randomized controlled trial(9)

Randomized 476 infants to immediate or 2 minute delayed clamping and followed them for 6 months. Delayed clamped babies had higher MCVs (81 vs. 79.5), higher ferritins (50.7 vs. 34.4), and higher total body iron. Effects were greater in infants born to iron deficient mothers. Delayed clamping increased total iron stores by 27-47mg. A follow up study showed that lead exposed infants with delayed clamping also had lower serum lead levels than immediate clamped infants, likely due to iron mediates changes in lead absorption.

A randomized clinical trial comparing immediate versus delayed clamping of the umbilical cord in preterm infants: short-term clinical and laboratory endpoints(10)

Infants delivering at 30 to 36 weeks gestation randomized to immediate vs. 1 minute delay. Delayed group had higher RBC volumes (p = 0.04) and hematocrits (p < 0.005), though there was no difference in RBC transfusions. There was a small increase in babies requiring phototherapy in the delayed group (p = 0.03) but no difference in bilirubin levels between groups.

Immediate versus delayed umbilical cord clamping in premature neonates born < 35 weeks: a prospective, randomized, controlled study (11)

Randomized 60 infants to clamping at 5-10 seconds vs. 30-45 seconds. Delayed clamping infants had higher BPs and hematocrits. Infants < 1500 grams with delayed clamping needed less mechanical ventilation and surfactant. Trend towards more polycythemia in delayed group, but not statistically significant.

And that’s just some of it. I’ll be happy to send you an Endnote file with a pile more of you’d like it. If the burden of proof is on us to prove that immediate clamping is good, that burden is clearly not met. And furthermore, there is strong evidence that delaying clamping as little as 30 seconds has measurable benefits for the infant, especially in premature babies and babies born to iron deficient mothers.

So basically, we should be doing this. I’m going to try to effect some change in my department, but there are a lot of things that need to happen for us to change as a general culture. It can’t just be the OBs. L and D nurses and pediatricians need to buy in as well.

Some people will argue that premature babies need to be brought to the warmer right away for resucitation. I don’t know the answer to this, but it’s worth study. One might think that it is important to intubate a very premature baby right away, but I have to wonder if that intact cord will be better at delivering oxygen to the baby for 30-60 seconds than the premature lungs. Particularly in cases of fetal respiratory acidosis, there is strong logical argument that a baby might be better resuscitated by unwrapping the cord and letting it flow a bit than trying to oxygenate it through its lungs. Until that placenta is detached, you have a natural ECMO system. Why not use it? Certainly there are exceptions to this logical argument, abruption being the biggest one, and perhaps even severe pre-eclampsia and other poor feto-maternal circulation states.

I wonder at times why delayed cord clamping has not become the standard already; why by and large we have not heeded the literature. It is sad to say that I believe it is because the champions of this practice have not been doctors, but midwives, and sometimes we are influenced by prejudice. Clearly, midwives and doctors tend to have some different ideas about how labor should be managed, but in the end data is data. We championed evidence based medicine, but tend to ignore evidence when it comes from the wrong source, which is unfair. It is fair to critique the research and the methods used to write it, but it shouldn’t matter who the author is. In this case, Mercer and other midwives have done the world a favor by scientifically addressing this issue, and their data deserves serious consideration.

To quote Levy et al (12) “Although a tailored approach is required in the case of cord clamping, the balance of available data suggests that delayed cord clamping should be the method of choice.” We ought to heed this advice better. Like episiotomy, this change in practice may take awhile, but we should get it started. I’m going to work on it myself. How about you?

1. Martin DL. The Protection of the Perineum by Episiotomy in Delivery at Term. Cal State J Med 1921 Jun;19(6):229-31.

2. Barrett CW. Errors and evils of episiotomy. Am J Surg 1948 Sep;76(3):284.

3. Rodriguez A, Arenas EA, Osorio AL, Mendez O, Zuleta JJ. Selective vs routine midline episiotomy for the prevention of third- or fourth-degree lacerations in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008 Mar;198(3):285 e1-4.

4. Gossett DR, Su RD. Episiotomy practice in a community hospital setting. J Reprod Med 2008 Oct;53(10):803-8.

5. Westfall R. An ethnographic account of lotus birth. Midwifery Today Int Midwife 2003 Summer(66):34-6.

6. Weeks A. Umbilical cord clamping after birth. Bmj 2007 Aug 18;335(7615):312-3.

7. Mercer JS, Vohr BR, McGrath MM, Padbury JF, Wallach M, Oh W. Delayed cord clamping in very preterm infants reduces the incidence of intraventricular hemorrhage and late-onset sepsis: a randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics 2006 Apr;117(4):1235-42.

8. Baenziger O, Stolkin F, Keel M, von Siebenthal K, Fauchere JC, Das Kundu S, et al. The influence of the timing of cord clamping on postnatal cerebral oxygenation in preterm neonates: a randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics 2007 Mar;119(3):455-9.

9. Chaparro CM, Neufeld LM, Tena Alavez G, Eguia-Liz Cedillo R, Dewey KG. Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping on iron status in Mexican infants: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006 Jun 17;367(9527):1997-2004.

10. Strauss RG, Mock DM, Johnson KJ, Cress GA, Burmeister LF, Zimmerman MB, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing immediate versus delayed clamping of the umbilical cord in preterm infants: short-term clinical and laboratory endpoints. Transfusion 2008 Apr;48(4):658-65.

11. Kugelman A, Borenstein-Levin L, Riskin A, Chistyakov I, Ohel G, Gonen R, et al. Immediate versus delayed umbilical cord clamping in premature neonates born < 35 weeks: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Am J Perinatol 2007 May;24(5):307-15.

12. Levy T, Blickstein I. Timing of cord clamping revisited. J Perinat Med 2006;34(4):293-7.