Can we talk about routine suctioning of babies at birth? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 01:08 PM - Thread Starter
 
pamamidwife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thank you, Ms Black for pointing out the vast difference in anxiety, population exposure, and risks that are different between homebirth and hospital birth.

There is more and more evidence to show us that meconium aspiration:

1) does not occur with the first breath
2) usually happens from inhalation of meconium in utero because of hypoxia (lack of oxygen because of distress) - it's the baby's natural response and last effort to take in some oxygen
3) babies that are pre-term or have other illnesses (such as those born to moms with chorioamnionitis) are at higher risk for MAS simply because of their situation - even if there is no meconium present. We call this pneumonia, but for some reason if there is even slight mec present, it gets labeled as MAS.


I feel very fortunate to be an independent practitioner that can practice what they evidence shows us to be true. What has been the hardest thing, as I would imagine would be for any provider, is unlearning some of the more non-benificial (is that even a word??) practices and routines I have always been taught were necessary for good outcome. Fortunately, being up to date on evidence - and just being aware of how normal and uncomplicated uninterfered birth is - makes my experiences very, very different than those that practice in the hospital. In a hospital setting, I wouldn't have individual choice so it would be natural to assume that what I was doing was beneficial. I don't think many people could survive in a profession doing things that they knew was possibly harmful or not necessary.
pamamidwife is offline  
#62 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 01:57 PM
 
jessjgh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: South Shore MA
Posts: 4,956
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
That was one thing that bothered me about the Gentle Birth Choices video... almost every time the attendants RUSHED over to suction the babies... and it just disturbed the whole flow.

Jessica

Jessica..lady.gifintactlact.gif Falling in love all over again..... 
Dhprivateeyes.gif, Joshua rolleyes.gif Rebeccagrouphug.gifand dog2.gif.    candle.gif for Laura
jessjgh1 is offline  
#63 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 01:59 PM
 
MsBlack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SE MO
Posts: 3,609
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Non beneficial...hmmm...maybe detrimental?

I like words

Otherwise, yeah, what you said!
MsBlack is offline  
#64 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 03:44 PM
 
BugMacGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
part of what compounds the issue is the suctioning (leading to lower heart tones from a vagal response which could seriously lead to inhalation of the meconium)

You're contradicting yourself here Pam. YOu're correctly pointing out that MAS likely occurs before birth, but then saying that suctioning causes it.

And btw, mec aspiration had a very specific appearance on x-ray. Easily differentiated from pneumonia from other causes. But mec does cause chemical pneumonia. Clear as mud eh? It also often causes persistent pulmonary hypertension, which not all other pneumonias do. So we're not calling all pneumonias MAS just because there was mec present. Though untimately, many of the treatments are the same.

Vagal response d/t suctioning does NOT cause MAS. Babies DO NOT have persistent bradycardia from a vagal response (though they wight with a compromised airway! Hence the Airway, Breathing, Circulation axiom) Bradycardia in infants is almost always due to a respiratory issue anyway. Bradycardia does not cause the gasping.



After hundreds and hundreds of births, I think I have a pretty good feeling for those babies that could benefit from suctioning. I've had one kiddo (ONE!!!) that developed MAS and had to have an ECMO run. But his insult occurred wayyyyy prior to delivery, he was bradycardic when mom arrived in labor.
BugMacGee is offline  
#65 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 03:45 PM - Thread Starter
 
pamamidwife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessjgh1 View Post
That was one thing that bothered me about the Gentle Birth Choices video... almost every time the attendants RUSHED over to suction the babies... and it just disturbed the whole flow.

Jessica
yeah, I had really hoped that Barbara would have updated the video a bit...the manipulations of the babies heads was also hard to watch. however, this video is NOWHERE as bad as Special Delivery. Oy.
pamamidwife is offline  
#66 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 05:26 PM
 
~MoonGypsy~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
Posts: 1,672
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessjgh1 View Post
That was one thing that bothered me about the Gentle Birth Choices video... almost every time the attendants RUSHED over to suction the babies... and it just disturbed the whole flow.

Jessica
This is actually what drew me to this thread in the first place. We just watched Gentle Birth Choices in my Childbirth class on Monday and I really was taken back by how rough the suctioning was, how it interrupted the flow of things and how utterly useless it seemed to be.
~MoonGypsy~ is offline  
#67 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 05:43 PM
 
BugMacGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwherbs View Post
so here are some relatively small studies but what I see even through the years- that there is consistent findings---except the one done in 04- they all agree that oxygen stats are better in the un-sucitoned baby-- but even with the findings of the 04 study being different- "findings were not considered clinically significant because values remained within normal parameters."

Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005 Oct;45(5):453-6.

Oronasopharyngeal suction versus no suction in normal, term and vaginally born infants: a prospective randomised controlled trial.
Gungor S, Teksoz E, Ceyhan T, Kurt E, Goktolga U, Baser I.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gulhane Military Medical Academyand Medical School, Ankara, Turkey. sgungor@gata.edu.tr

This prospective randomised controlled trial aimed to compare the effects of
oronasopharyngeal suction with those of no suction in normal, term and vaginally born infants and was performed at a Turkish tertiary hospital from June 2003 to January 2004. A total of 140 newborns were enrolled in the trial (n = 70 per group). The no suction group showed lower mean heart rates through the 3rd and 6th minutes and higher SaO(2) values through the first 6 mins of life (P < 0.001). The maximum time to reach SaO2 of >or= 92% (6 vs. 11 min) and >or= 86% (5 vs. 8 min) were shorter in the no suction group (P < 0.001).

PMID: 16171488 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2006;61(1):9-14. Epub 2005 Aug 19.

Oronasopharyngeal suction versus no suction in normal and term infants delivered by elective cesarean section: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Gungor S, Kurt E, Teksoz E, Goktolga U, Ceyhan T, Baser I.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gulhane Military Medical Academy and Medical School, Ankara, Turkey. sgungor@gata.edu.tr

BACKGROUND/AIM: There are controversies about the routine use of
oronasopharyngeal suction (ONPS) in healthy infants. This study aimed to compare the effects of oronasopharyngeal suction with those of no suction in normal, term infants delivered by cesarean section. METHODS: 140 term, healthy newborns of uncomplicated pregnancies were prospectively randomized to one of two groups according to the use of ONPS procedure. Differences in oxygen saturation levels, heart rates, and Apgar scores were determined. RESULTS: The mean SaO(2) values through the 2nd and 6th min of life were significantly higher in the no suction group (p < 0.001). The maximum time to reach SaO(2) of > or =92% (6 vs. 11 min) and > or =86% (5 vs. 8 min) saturation were shorter in the no suction group than in the ONPS group. The mean heart rates were consistently and significantly lower
in the no suction group during the first 6 min except the second one.
All
neonates without suction had an Apgar score of 10 at the 5th min, while the mean +/- SD for ONPS group was 9.34 +/- 0.48 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although findings remained on statistical level and did not lead to clinically adverse outcomes, there is no statistical or physiological basis for oronasopharyngeal suction as a systematic procedure in healthy, term infants delivered by cesarean section. Copyright 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel.

PMID: 16113579 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: J Pediatr. 1997 May;130(5):832-4.

Oronasopharyngeal suction at birth: effects on arterial oxygen saturation.
Carrasco M, Martell M, Estol PC.
Department of Neonatology, School of Medicine, University of Uruguay, Montevideo.
The effect of oronasopharyngeal suction (ONPS) on arterial oxygen saturation
(SaO2) is described in a controlled study of 30 normal term newborn infants. In 15 of them, ONPS was performed immediately after birth. The SaO2 value was recorded through a pulse oximeter. The ONPS group had a significantly lower SaO2 between the first and the sixth minutes of life and took longer to reach 86% and 92% saturation. According to this study, ONPS should not be performed as a routine procedure in normal, term, vaginally born infants.

PMID: 9152298 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2004 Jan-Feb;49(1):32-8.

Building evidence for practice: a pilot study of newborn bulb suctioning at
birth.
Waltman PA, Brewer JM, Rogers BP, May WL.
Undergraduate Program, University of Mississippi School of Nursing, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson 39216-4505, USA. pwaltman@son.umsmed.edu

The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of bulb suctioning on
healthy, term newborns and the feasibility of conducting a large-scale study of this practice. In a randomized, controlled two-group design pilot study, 10
newborns received oronasopharyngeal bulb suctioning at birth and 10 did not.
Differences in Apgar scores, heart rates, and oxygen saturation levels were
determined. Infants were randomized to groups before delivery. The participants were 20 term, healthy newborns of uncomplicated pregnancies. Apgar scores, heart rates, and oxygen saturation levels in the first 20 minutes of life were the main outcome variables. There were no statistically significant differences in Apgar scores between groups. Apgar scores at 5 and 10 minutes were 9 or 10 for all newborns. Newborns receiving bulb suctioning showed a statistically significant, lower heart rate (P=.042) during the first 20 minutes and a significantly higher SpO2 level (P=.005) by 15 minutes of age. Although statistically significant,these findings were not considered clinically significant because values remained within normal parameters.

PMID: 14710138 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bolding mine.

Pretty inconsistent findings.

SInce we don't measure sats at birth, we're more concerned about hr. Two of these studies are saying the no suction group had lower hr than their suctioned counterparts. That would concern me.



Any evidence of *damage* from bulb syringing? Cause I haven't found any. SOmeone mentioned nasal inflammation. I'm curious how you would assess that. Unless it was GROSS inflammation, which occluded the nares (which might indicate the baby has bigger problems with such an acute inflammatory response) it would be really hard to tell. We use otoscopes to check for irritation with our NCPAP kiddos. No other way to tell really.

And I agree that babies are resilient. I see it every time I go to work. Wee little miracles. I see babies go through so much and turn out to be, for all intents and purposes, normal kids (we do follow many of them when they leave, some of their parents have become good friends of mine). I just have a very hard time believing that suctioning is going to cause any real harm.

I know that my practices, and those of most of my colleagues (there are the occasional bad apples, I won't deny that) is based on best practices and the clinical picture at hand.
BugMacGee is offline  
#68 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 05:48 PM - Thread Starter
 
pamamidwife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
wow, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. just different approaches, I suppose.

that old theory that unless it's proven harmful, we'll just keep on doing it.

somehow I don't think any study will be recognized by you, BugMacgee. vagal response with bradycardia and resulting hypotonic babies? the fact that new NRP guidelines say that routine suctioning is not necessary? studies that show damage to newborns? hey, I guess if you can't SEE the damage there must not be any, huh? why would you use an otoscope to check for damage? don't you mean some other type of instrument? isn't an otoscope for ears? what about those babies that don't need an NCPAP? are those babies checked?

very different approaches to a newborn's experience of extrauterine life. I'm on a serious journey for gentle unhindered birth - for both mother and baby. I understand those that work within an institution rarely ever see what I see - and that's unfortunate. I also am reasonable to recognize that I see unmedicated, normal, healthy women and babies. That in and of itself is very different.

and with regards to gastric suctioning (because I sure hope that unless you're doing an ET tube, you're not sending these tubes down to the lungs!):

Re.Gastric suction at birth.
Commonly was/is used following resuc of any kind especially in the presence of meconium on the rationale that the baby might vomit and aspirate the fluid. More recent research cautions against the practice due to an association with longterm, lifelong GI disorders in the child.

For more info check out:
"Gastric suction at birth associated with long-term risk for functional intestinal disorders in later life. " The Journal of Pediatrics, Volume 144, Issue 4, Pages 449-454. K. Anand
pamamidwife is offline  
#69 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 05:48 PM - Thread Starter
 
pamamidwife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
*deleted because of repeat post*
pamamidwife is offline  
#70 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 06:10 PM - Thread Starter
 
pamamidwife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugMacGee View Post
part of what compounds the issue is the suctioning (leading to lower heart tones from a vagal response which could seriously lead to inhalation of the meconium)

You're contradicting yourself here Pam. YOu're correctly pointing out that MAS likely occurs before birth, but then saying that suctioning causes it
see, i don't think i'm contradicting myself. i just didn't end my parenthesis in the right way...it should be after vagal response. i've heard of far too many well-meaning providers that start suctioning and then insert the tube down into the lungs rather than the stomach. perhaps the lower heart tones don't lead to inhalation, but suctioning can and does.
pamamidwife is offline  
#71 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 06:12 PM
 
Jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Kenmore, Washington
Posts: 7,110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Pam, that last link is broken. It goes to a graphics file.


Someone asked upthread - why not wait for the baby to want to nurse? Well, I am willing to wait some, but I won't leave until the baby nurses well. A baby that "isn't nursing well" IMO is one that is not staying on the breast, but pulling off, getting agitated, etc, that isn't fixed by the mother's intuition, followed by some suggested position changes or other thoughts, after 2 hours or so. It's a part of having an attended birth - the midwife wants to go home if everything is okay. I certainly have stayed 12 hours after a birth for a baby that didn't want to nurse. If they don't nurse before they get really sleepy, they often want to wait until 4-6 hours later.

I suspect that sometimes the baby won't nurse because her tummy is already full of fluid. What is the capasity of a NB's stomach - 10 ml? I've seen many times the suggested capasity come out of the baby. Do they nurse because they are empty? Or for the calming effect of sucking and being close to mom? I'm not sure.

Homebirth Midwife biggrinbounce.gif

After 4 m/c, our stillheart.gif is here!

Jane is offline  
#72 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 06:14 PM
 
LemonPie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,058
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Two of these studies are saying the no suction group had lower hr than their suctioned counterparts. That would concern me.
I'd be interested to read the FULL articles and not just the abstracts (but alas, I have no subscription). However, aren't we talking context here? A lot of this depends on what is defined as a low vs high heart rate for the baby. Heart rates that fall outside certain parameters, whether high or low, in any setting are considered "bad". So it's not enough to say that the baby had a low heart rate and that proves your point.

Are we talking lower as in BETTER because an excessively high heart rate can be an indicator of a stress response in the baby? Or are we talking lower as in WORSE because the baby's heart rate isn't picking up like it should? Of course we can't answer that here, because we don't have the full text of the article. Abstracts don't tell us everything.


Jen

Wife to a great DH, SAHM to 3 great kids
LemonPie is offline  
#73 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 06:19 PM - Thread Starter
 
pamamidwife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
thanks, Apricot, I didn't mean for that link to get included in there.
pamamidwife is offline  
#74 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 06:36 PM
 
mwherbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 5,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
so what I saw was that babies have normal --- healthy levels with or without- the consistent findings are that these babies stay in the healthy zone with either type of care-- the post c-section babies showed something a little different didn't they from vaginal birth-- but still in normal zone even without suctioning -- which is why I included the info-- so no over all not inconsistent results-- but also yes the 2004 study showed just the opposite in trend as the 2006 study- but both agreed that all babies stayed with normal so what exactly is gained by routine stuctioning ?

so do you examine babies much who are not suctioned?
mwherbs is offline  
#75 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 07:40 PM
 
BugMacGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
somehow I don't think any study will be recognized by you, BugMacgee. vagal response with bradycardia and resulting hypotonic babies? the fact that new NRP guidelines say that routine suctioning is not necessary? studies that show damage to newborns? hey, I guess if you can't SEE the damage there must not be any, huh? why would you use an otoscope to check for damage? don't you mean some other type of instrument? isn't an otoscope for ears? what about those babies that don't need an NCPAP? are those babies checked?

Are you trying to convince me that there is never place for suctioning at birth?


First, I am an NRP instructor so I'm very well aware of what the guidelines are. A couple of my attendings are on the steering committee. Secondly, I attend conferences and do extensive research on my own pertaining to neonatal care. It is my passion. So please don't tell me I'm ignoring studies. I've got a huge friggin file of them and I'm always looking for more.

These studies aren't convincing me that suctioning is *damaging* (I still don't do it routinely) And in those babies that I have suctioned, none of them have vagal'ed to the point of hypotonia requiring further resuscitation. Most of the start out hypotonic, then perk up with gentle stim. Resuscitations usually follow a linear pattern.

see, i don't think i'm contradicting myself. i've heard of far too many well-meaning providers that start suctioning and then insert the tube down into the lungs rather than the stomach. perhaps the lower heart tones don't lead to inhalation, but suctioning can and does.

I haven't ever seen a tube passed into the lungs that wasn't meant to be there. Thanks gag reflex for that one. It is far more likely to have an ET tube placed in the espohagus, though that is also very rare. You must have worked with some very incompetent providers.

Show me the research that proves that suctioning can cause inhalation. Cause I didn't find any. Vagal response can lead to bradycardia, it doesn't lead to gasping.

We use an otoscope to check for damage to the nares in our NCPAP babies because that's the only way we can see it. (which is why I question how anyone can assume nare damage just by looking at a baby) They have prongs in their noses nearing 24 hours a day (with a 15 minute break q 8) If they don't have damage to their nares, why would a baby who was suctioned once? And a baby who was suctioned once is not checked unless for some reason they require a higher level of care than bonding with mom which, in most cases, they don't. Mwherbs, we don't check the unsuctioned ones we attend except for a quick head to toe.

As for gastric suctioning, I think I've made it abundantly clear, I don't do it unless there is a large amount of blood or thick mec. Both, IME ARE irritating to the stomach, especially blood, and can inhibit BF'ing. Not to mention, the trauma you saved mom from with the suctioning will come back ten fold when babe barfs up a bunch of blood while trying to BF.


Please don't feel sorry for me. That's like me saying I feel sorry for anyone who can't help the mom of an intubated baby hold for the first time, or watch the parents of a preemie finally take their baby home. We're just about different things. I love taking care of sick babies. I love support families in crisis. I'm really good at it. As I said before, this my passion. Plus I see every kinda of differently birthed baby under the sun SO whether they were birthed gently or not is moot by the time we're in the picture in many cases.



And I have a question about delayed cord clamping since were here, what if there is evidence of placental insufficiency or abruption?
BugMacGee is offline  
#76 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 08:07 PM
 
BugMacGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh and the volume of a baby's stomach is ~ 15 ml.

I know you all want to believe that we only have "medical" babies in the NICU. Well, whatever. Go to the NICU/preemie forum and have a look.
BugMacGee is offline  
#77 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 08:11 PM
 
mwherbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 5,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
you win- as far as seeing the extremes-- 1 baby with MAS in over 20 years- although I could say that luck probably had alot to do with that-- probably 2 babies with some blood swallowed- not resuscitations so not routinely suctioned but was seen in some spit up
since I look quite a bit at babies who do not have any suction at all- looking at swelling that suction produces seems clear- and I have watched babies breath hold and breath differently after being bulbed -- since the study in 04 was a pilot study-- I will write the instructor/author and see if further study has been planned.... I would like to see something on the order of several hundred or 1000---
mwherbs is offline  
#78 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 08:15 PM - Thread Starter
 
pamamidwife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,644
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i appreciate your wiilingness to discuss this. for a sick neonate, i'm glad you are there. i also know this discussion is rooted in routine suctioning.

fwiw, i never said i was sorry for you. perhaps that was your interpretation? i am glad that i see healthy newborns nearly all of the time. if i had your job, i'm not sure that i'd see birth in the same light.

still, i respect who you and what you do. i just happen to disagree when it comes to rather healthy babies and how we treat them routinely in the hospital.

and to answer your question about delayed cord clamping, I consider early clamping iatrogenic hypoxia. the immediate clamping of the cord is not something i think helps with an unresponsive baby, but alas, we have no way in the hospital to serve the needs of resusciation with the cord still intact.

if there is placental insufficiency or abruption? does UPI make the placenta more toxic? doesn't the baby still have to give back and take what is left from the placenta? i don't understand what you're asking.

for abruption - what do you mean, after the birth I'm assuming. are you talking about a depressed, non-responsive baby? again, see above about not having a place in hospitals to even resus a baby with the cord intact.

i do believe that delayed (until the placenta emerges), helps with volume in the placenta and that ensures that the placenta shears off the uterus much more evenly and efficiently. again, though, i go back to the fact that biologically we are not made to have cord clamps right away at birth. there is a specific design that is perfect - unless there are drugs in the mother's system.

if you'd like to discuss delayed cord clamping we can most certainly do that, but on a different thread. there's also the website http://www.cordclamp.com/ that makes sense to me on a physiological and scientific level.

care to debate the benefits of homebirth next? because I think I might be ready.
pamamidwife is offline  
#79 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 08:43 PM
 
mwherbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 5,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
well since we cut cords for the most part after a placenta is born- the placenta has basically come off the uterine wall -- and we resuscitate with everything still intact- right beside mom-- placenta out or not-- if a baby hasn't taken a breath we probably have not had a change in circulation yet-
stimulation and drying warmth- HR under 100 , suction then puffs, add compressions for heart rate under 80 ---



babies that have placental insuficency I hope we have them in the hosptial already-- and an abruption as well--


we should really move this to another thread--
mwherbs is offline  
#80 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 09:06 PM
 
LemonPie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,058
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Oh and the volume of a baby's stomach is ~ 15 ml.
Actually, on day 1, it's 5-7 mL.

http://www.llli.org/FAQ/colostrum.html

Jen

Wife to a great DH, SAHM to 3 great kids
LemonPie is offline  
#81 of 109 Old 08-29-2007, 11:25 PM
 
georgia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: tl;dr
Posts: 26,063
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
we should really move this to another thread--
Excellent suggestion

Hi, everyone...just wanted to post a friendly reminder about MDC's statement of purpose:

Quote:
Mothering.com is the website of natural family living and advocates natural solutions to parenting challenges. We host discussion of nighttime parenting, loving discipline, natural birth, homebirth, successful breastfeeding, alternative and complementary home remedies, informed consent, and many other topics from a natural point of view.


Quote:
Mothering celebrates the experience of parenthood as worthy of one's best efforts and fosters awareness of the immense importance and value of family life in the development of the full human potential of parents and children. At Mothering we recognize parents as experts and seek to provide truly helpful information upon which parents can make informed choices. Mothering is both a fierce advocate of the needs and rights of the child and a gentle supporter of the parents, and we encourage decision-making that considers the needs of all family members. We explore the reality of human relationships in the family setting, recognizing that raising the heirs of our civilization well is the prerequisite for a healthy society.

Mothering advocates natural family living, including the ancient way of being with babies and children that is known today as attachment parenting. This way is reliant on the inherent integrity of children and the inviolate intuition of parents. The family is the dominion of parents and children and authoritative knowledge rests with them. This website is a place to safely explore all the aspects involved in such a parenting philosophy.

The MotheringDotCommune discussion boards serve an online community of parents considering, learning and practicing attachment parenting and natural family living. Our discussions on the boards are about the real world of mothering and are first and foremost, for support and information.
Thanks to all for their contributions and participation

I have retired from administration work, so if you have a question about anything MDC-related, please contact Cynthia Mosher. Thanks!
 
georgia is offline  
#82 of 109 Old 08-30-2007, 12:17 AM
 
cottonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugMacGee View Post
Posted by fourlittlebirds: Hospitals workers generally don't see it as an issue, because their goal isn't to protect the sanctity of the individual, it's simply to pass another living object along on the conveyor belt.

Sorry 4littlebirds, I take very serious offense to this statement. Your perception is not fact, do not state it as so.
Really. I wonder what you would regard as fact, then? That the majority of managed childbirth is respectful of the mother-baby unit? That it protects the emotional and bodily integrity of the mother and baby? I'm sorry, but I find that laughable. In nearly all of the birth stories I have read and heard (numbering in the hundreds) and the videos I have seen, and the stories I hear from birth workers (including doctors,) and according to the clinical data that is available, that's not even close to being the case. And that includes NICU care. And yes, I'm angry about it. I'm offended by the technocratic model of childbirth and by the utter lack of compassion present even when people need medical care. I know that real healers exist within the system. But in my experience, that is the rare exception and not the rule. And frankly, I don't care that you're offended. I know too many people that have been deeply hurt by our medical system, and few that have actually been helped. I'm grateful that myself and my loved ones have had access to medical care when we needed it. But that doesn't nullify the fact that the system is essentially broken and not about healing except in a very limited physical sense.
cottonwood is offline  
#83 of 109 Old 08-30-2007, 03:18 AM
 
BugMacGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh and please give me your suggestions as to how we can better our NICU practices in your opinion.

I'm certainly open to them.
BugMacGee is offline  
#84 of 109 Old 08-30-2007, 04:03 AM
 
ericswifey27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by huggerwocky View Post
My daughter wasn't suctioned at her home birth, I am sure some midwives would have done it as she wasn't crying or anything. I guess I was lucky, with the next baby I'll make sure to talk about it beforehand if I live somewhere else.

I've only seen it on TV, makes me shudder.
We share the same midwife, and ds2 was suctioned. I knew it was not SOP- she said she very rarely ever suctioned, did not like to do it but felt it was necessary,(this was after an extremely long difficult labor with meconium present) but it's still nice to validate that normally that it is not done. Still not sure how I feel about it though but it is what it is ykwim?

Anyway I am filing this thread away for the next baby...

Mama to my spirited J, and L, my homebirth: baby especially DTaP, MMR (family vax injuries)
ericswifey27 is offline  
#85 of 109 Old 08-30-2007, 01:56 PM
 
cfiddlinmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gestating My Rainbow Baby GIRL!
Posts: 1,833
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Fascinating thread. Thank you Pam for bringing this to my attention!

With my second birth, first hospital birth, the CNM decided to suction his stomach. She said that he had a lot of fluid in his stomach and he would end up spitting up colostrum. She didn't want him to waste any. Silly me, I agreed. So there's another reason for suctioning the stomach.

Also, mwherbs stated compressions for heart rate under 80. I just took the NRP class and the guidelines state compressions for heart rate under 60. Just so you know....

Anyways, thank you for the education!
cfiddlinmama is offline  
#86 of 109 Old 08-30-2007, 04:43 PM
 
mwherbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 5,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfiddlinmama View Post
Fascinating thread. Thank you Pam for bringing this to my attention!

With my second birth, first hospital birth, the CNM decided to suction his stomach. She said that he had a lot of fluid in his stomach and he would end up spitting up colostrum. She didn't want him to waste any. Silly me, I agreed. So there's another reason for suctioning the stomach.

Also, mwherbs stated compressions for heart rate under 80. I just took the NRP class and the guidelines state compressions for heart rate under 60. Just so you know....

Anyways, thank you for the education!
of course you are right --- sorry -------
mwherbs is offline  
#87 of 109 Old 08-30-2007, 06:10 PM
 
cfiddlinmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gestating My Rainbow Baby GIRL!
Posts: 1,833
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
:
cfiddlinmama is offline  
#88 of 109 Old 09-02-2007, 01:08 PM
 
cottonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Read recently at At Your Cervix:

"I have definitely seen babies who absolutely refuse the breast, after they have been vigorously bulb suctioned, or suctioned with wall suction and an 8 french catheter. Don't even get me started on wall suction - it truly has a time and place, but it's not for routine/normal babies! It causes stimulation of the gag reflex, which can lead to bradycardia if you keep suctioning into their stomach too much or too often." (L&D nurse)

"I was told by an experienced nurse that they over suctioning caused her nose to swell inside, which caused her not to be able to breathe well, and she put saline in the nose and it helped. I was so scared I'd go home with a baby who would die overnight after that. At one of my NST's the nurse told me they are "getting away from suctioning." "
cottonwood is offline  
#89 of 109 Old 09-02-2007, 03:03 PM
 
QueenOfThePride's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: the frigid north
Posts: 4,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just had my baby a couple of weeks ago, and thanks to pamamidwife's blog and discussions in this forum, we refused suctioning. He's perfectly fine, came out screaming and didn't have any problems clearing his own airway.

Thanks!

Tis the season, for hot apple cider!
QueenOfThePride is offline  
#90 of 109 Old 09-02-2007, 07:35 PM
 
georgia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: tl;dr
Posts: 26,063
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Please remember that the MDC User Agreement requires that we do not take personal issue with other members on threads.

Any further personally directed comments would be most appropriately taken to PM so as to not to derail the thread and to keep posts within the spirit of MDC's goal of support and community.

If there are discussion topics other than routine suctioning that anyone would like to discuss, please start a new thread for future search purposes and ease of organization. As always, any questions or comments, please PM me or Arwyn

Thanks so much!

I have retired from administration work, so if you have a question about anything MDC-related, please contact Cynthia Mosher. Thanks!
 
georgia is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off