4.4 Review

Early versus delayed umbilical cord clamping on maternal and neonatal outcomes

Journal

ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
Volume 300, Issue 3, Pages 531-543

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-019-05215-8

Keywords

Delayed cord clamping; Early cord clamping; Maternal outcomes; Prenatal outcomes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Policies for timing of cord clamping varied from early cord clamping (ECC) in the first 30 s after birth, to delayed cord clamping (DCC) in more than 30 s after birth or when cord pulsation has ceased. DCC, an inexpensive method allowed physiological placental transfusion. The aim of this article is to review the benefits and the potential harms of early versus delayed cord clamping. Methods Narrative overview, synthesizing the findings of the literature retrieved from searches of computerized databases. Results Delayed cord clamping in term and preterm infants had shown higher hemoglobin levels and iron storage, the improved infants' and children's neurodevelopment, the lesser anemia, the higher blood pressure and the fewer transfusions, as well as the lower rates of intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), chronic lung disease, necrotizing enterocolitis, and late-onset sepsis. DCC was seldom associated with lower Apgar scores, neonatal hypothermia of admission, respiratory distress, and severe jaundice. In addition, DCC was not associated with increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage and maternal blood transfusion whether in cesarean section or vaginal delivery. DCC appeared to have no effect on cord blood gas analysis. However, DCC for more than 60 s reduced drastically the chances of obtaining clinically useful cord blood units (CBUs). Conclusion Delayed cord clamping in term and preterm infants was a simple, safe, and effective delivery procedure, which should be recommended, but the optimal cord clamping time remained controversial.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available