Advertisement

Delayed cord clamping?

Published:March 07, 2015DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.03.012
      To the Editors:
      I congratulate Tarnow-Mordi et al
      • Tarnow-Mordi
      • Duley L.
      • Field D.
      • et al.
      Timing of cord clamping in very preterm infants: more evidence is needed.
      on their excellent scientific analysis of delayed cord clamping. I would like to inquire regarding the authors’ views on the terminology itself. The term, delayed, is generally not a good thing and often denotes a maloccurrence. The technique of delayed cord clamping is delayed only when compared with the current common practice, which might best be described as immediate or accelerated. The delay proposed is generally sooner than would occur compared with physiological cord occlusion from vasoconstriction. In that light, I wonder whether the authors would comment on the possibility of using a more accurate and less pejorative term such as semiphysiological cord clamping.

      Reference

        • Tarnow-Mordi
        • Duley L.
        • Field D.
        • et al.
        Timing of cord clamping in very preterm infants: more evidence is needed.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 211: 118-123

      Linked Article

      • Timing of cord clamping in very preterm infants: more evidence is needed
        American Journal of Obstetrics & GynecologyVol. 211Issue 2
        • Preview
          In December 2012, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a Committee Opinion entitled “Timing of umbilical cord clamping after birth.” It stated that “evidence exists to support delayed cord clamping in preterm infants, when feasible. The single most important benefit for preterm infants is the possibility for a nearly 50% reduction in IVH.” However, the Committee Opinion added that the ideal timing of umbilical cord clamping has yet to be determined and recommended that large clinical trials be conducted in the most preterm infants.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF
      • Reply
        American Journal of Obstetrics & GynecologyVol. 212Issue 6