Science & Sensibility

In this series about EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing), Part One looked at qualitative research evaluating EMDR as treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (childbirth onset). In Part Two, EMDR clinicians weighed in on their feelings about the safety of EMDR during pregnancy. When those EMDR posts were published, I received a lot of behind the scenes feedback from women who either loved or hated their experiences with EMDR; there didn’t seem to be a middle ground!

I felt these women’s voices need to be heard (many thanks to Sharon Muza, S&S Community Manager, for her gracious agreement!) The results are here: four interviews conducted with four real women who suffered from trauma in the perinatal period and tried EMDR.

It’s unfortunate these lovely women suffered extreme emotional turmoil at such an important time in their life; when they were working and hoping to build their emergent family and when they were primarily responsible for the safety and care of their infants.

Through sharing their stories, all women indicated to me that they hope that their voices will contribute to the collective movement to incorporate mental health care into the overall care of women and their families in the childbearing year.

Characteristics of Their Trauma

All of the women interviewed experienced trauma in the early postpartum period. Three suffered specifically from birth trauma; all experienced a severe perinatal mood disorder. Three of the women additionally were coping with complex, long-term, multi-layered emotional trauma, stemming back to abuse in childhood.

All of the women interviewed were seeing licensed therapists who incorporated EMDR into their overall treatment plan for trauma. Some asked to have their identities masked, so identifying details and names are obscured, but the overall personal statements and feelings are preserved.

They are empowering to all of us in that ALL of them valued their mental health and were brave enough to seek professional help!

Personal Healing Processes

The women interviewed are all emotionally mature adults. They’re aware of their life situations and the impact of trauma on their well-being. They’ve worked hard to explore and develop life-long skills and methods of managing their emotions. Thus, these are all women who are proactive, sophisticated and intelligent about their emotional healing processes. Before they used EMDR, all of the women had already incorporated many forms of healing into their personal self-care plans.

Their self-care plans included: long-term psychotherapy, journaling, expressive therapies such as art, music and movement, yoga, exercising, gardening, cognitive behavioral therapy, goal setting and medication. One woman indicated she was in so much pain from long-term, severe, past abuse she had seriously discussed electroconsulsive therapy with her psychiatrist. So, when their trusted therapists suggested trying EMDR, specifically designed to treat trauma, all the women agreed.

Personal Perinatal Traumatic Events:

In their own words, the women share their individualized, personal perinatal trauma experiences below.

Birth Trauma:

Kim (not her real name) shares her traumatic birth story:

“My son was born after an easy pregnancy but a complicated birth. I’d very nearly had a vaginal birth; the nurses could see the top of his head, but it was turning to the side each time I pushed. After nearly 2 hours of this, I underwent a c-section because I had spiked a fever and things were not progressing. During my c-section, I was overcome by anxiety and completely paralyzed by fear.

I literally thought I was dying as my son was being born, yet due to the panic, I was unable to verbalize this fear to anyone.

I spent that time shaking and having what I thought were my last panicked thoughts and breaths. It was the the most afraid I’ve ever been in my entire life, and also the most alone I’d felt, despite being surrounded by others.

After the surgery, I wasn’t able to hold my son for 3 hours. I spent the time in recovery, scared that something were wrong and nobody was telling me. I am still not sure of the reason for the delay.

My maternity leave felt long, due to postpartum anxiety and depression and a baby who barely slept and I cried nonstop some days. I felt like a terrible mother who was unable to console her child or enjoy him. I felt tremendous guilt. In addition to the emotional aspects, my c-section scar was not healing properly, so I felt as if I were constantly making a 30-mile trek (newborn in tow) to my ob-gyn’s office for checkups. “

Birth Trauma Layered on Childhood Trauma:

Karen (not her real name) said:

“My very traumatic birth triggered already active memories of severe childhood abuse, parental suicidal attempts in front of me, active alcoholism & substance abuse in the family and severe childhood neglect.”

Helen (not her real name) said:

“I was working on birth trauma at the start of the EMDR, but later on, abuse, illnesses, and marital distress. I was mainly focused on the birth trauma I had experienced when I used EMDR.”

Postpartum Traumatic Event Layered on Childhood Trauma:

Jessica Banas explained her perinatal trauma as such:

“I was traumatized by my childhood with my father. He was very emotionally abusive. Seeing him overdose (on a drug called GHB) the first night my parents were to supposed to have been watching my infant son for me, so I could rest, felt like the ultimate betrayal. Once again, not only were they NOT there for ME, but I had to SAVE them (again) instead!!!”

Women’s Experiences Show Us Moms with PTSD Suffer Co-morbid Perinatal Depression & Anxiety

It is fascinating and sad that all three women with pre-existing trauma stated their prior trauma was re-triggered by a perinatal traumatic event (traumatic birth or other traumatic event postpartum). And all four suffered from severe postpartum depression and anxiety after their traumatic perinatal event. A woman’s mental health is an important aspect of the childbearing year.

As discussed in a previous blog post, one in four women suffers depression at some point in her life, and women are more likely to suffer depression during and shortly after pregnancy than at any other time (Nonacs, 2006). Ruta Nonacs, MD (2011), editor-in-chief of Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center of Women’s Mental Health’s website estimates annually in the US, there are about 4 million births, and about 950,000 to 1,000,000 mothers suffer from depression either during or after childbirth every year. 

Having a personal history of a mental illness in her lifetime, such as depression, anxiety, PTS/PTSD, OCD or bipolar disorder (remember, this is whether it was diagnosed & treated or undiagnosed & untreated) increases a woman’s risk of postpartum depression. A previous history of previous postpartum depression increases a woman’s risk of a recurrence to 50 – 80 % risk of recurrent PPD, as compared to a 10- 20% risk factor without having had a prior episode.

It’s important to note that the women’s constellation of PTSD symptoms intensified and they developed severe postpartum depression and anxiety.

Jessica eloquently states how important women’s mental health is to the postpartum period:

” One important symptom of my PTSD that complicated and worsened my PPD was when my infant son would cry and interrupt my ruminations of my father Od-ing. I’d get angry….that would trigger thoughts of wanting to harm my son and cause me great anxiety and incredible guilt…..there were many times I was too afraid if I went to tend to him, I’d treat him harshly, or hurt him This created such a sense of worthlessness and shame, I thought of suicide one night. Instead, I told my husband and we reached out and got help.

It is a very important aspect of PTSD in that I am personally aware how detrimental it is on PPD. My PPD rapidly escalated after getting PTSD. And one seemed to feed on the other. Getting treated for BOTH issues was very important.”

Women’s Experiences Show Us the EMDR Outcomes

Two very positive experiences

Kim’s Experience with Traumatic Birth & Postpartum Anxiety & EMDR

Kim, who suffered from birth trauma and postpartum anxiety, had a positive experience with EMDR. Here is her story of healing.

Kim said that her therapist incorporated EMDR into her current psychotherapy sessions. She said she hadn’t realized that she’d been suffering with PTSD until almost a year after the incident. She says she discovered her anxiety was stemming from a traumatic birth experience at a therapy session:

Kim says:

“…of course I’d had PTSD from thinking I was dying while my son was being born! My anxiety, which had a lot to do with waiting for something terrible to happen to me or my son, started to make sense in light of this new revelation.”

Kim experienced the EMDR itself as calming. She held tappers in her hands while her therapist led her through visualizations. Her therapist warned her that EMDR could be emotionally triggering and if she needed to call her, she was welcome to do so. And it was triggering for Kim. After her first session, she suffered from an anxiety attack and had to call her therapist, and received the help she needed.

Ultimately, Kim’s overall experience with EMDR was emotionally freeing and healing.

She goes on to say:

“Up until the EMDR, I was unable to speak about my c-section at all. I couldn’t see anything related to the birth experience (with or without c-sections involved) on television, either. If I caught a glimpse of a birth on TV, I cried. I had a lot of anxiety on the few occasions I tried to watch A Baby Story on TLC, as a test to see how I felt watching another woman’s experience.

After EMDR a few times, I became more comfortable thinking about and processing my experience, and even eventually talking about it with others. I no longer viewed my scar as something horrible and ugly. Having EMDR gave me back my confidence because it helped me stop seeing myself as a failure (because I needed a c-section instead of birthing vaginally). “

Kim would recommend EMDR to another person trying to recover from trauma, but with some warnings about the emotional response.

Jessica’s Experience of Postpartum Traumatic Event, PPD, Suicidal Ideation & EMDR

Jessica, who experienced the trauma of her father’s overdose while her parents were supposed to be watching her baby, had a positive experience with EMDR. Here is her story of healing:

Jessica said that her therapist incorporated EMDR into her current psychotherapy sessions. Her therapist suggested she try something “new” that would remove the sting of the trauma from her mind. Jessica was skeptical but thought she’d give it a try.

Jessica says:

“The EMDR was pretty much wrapped around by talk therapy in that we’d start out by talking and end up by talking… EMDR took the emotional ties from the traumatic memories away. I no longer find myself reliving any of those memories that were treated with EMDR. I no longer feel any emotional pain from the OD event. I have no loss of sleep, anger, depression, or any anxiety over that event.”

Jessica says she did not find the EMDR emotionally triggering at all, but many childhood memories came flooding back. .

“Not at all…frankly, I thought it was lame at first (wiggling a finger in my face? REALLY?) and had no hope it would have ANY effect at all. Once we (quickly) healed the OD trauma, memories from my childhood did come flooding back! I found that to be very interesting! Fortunately, my childhood was not as terrible as many, so I could handle this phenomenon.”

Jessica recommends EMDR:

“…as long as the person is seeing a well trained, compassionate therapist! EMDR helped me and I have gone on to suggest it to other people who were in pain as I was….those people have been healed by EMDR as well….I find it a useful treatment and extremely non-invasive compared to other treatments!!”

Two very negative experiences

Karen’s Experience with Birth Trauma, Past Trauma, PPD, PPA & EMDR

“My experience was physical and emotional and in both cases negative. I felt physically ill, vertigo, nausea. Disorientation, short-term memory loss, headache. Emotionally, it was detrimental as it brought up my most difficult trauma and I felt completely triggered. I tried to hang in there with the process, but only did a few sessions. The EMDR sessions were not processed with in-between traditional talk therapy sessions. The EMDR made my symptoms worse, my anxiety worse, and the neurological side-effects were horrible. While my therapist did a wonderful job at regrouping,  after we decided to stop doing it, I actually went up on my medications and saw her 2x a week for a while. It was just too much. What I think had happened to me was more resurfacing of old memories that I had compartmentalized in years of talk therapy and medication. I actually think I needed a medication adjustment when I was so desperate for relief. “

Karen would not personally recommend EMDR to another.

Helen’s Experience with Birth Trauma, Past Trauma, Postpartum Mental Health Complications & EMDR

“My therapist suggested the EMDR may be helpful for both traumas (birth and childhood). I had 6 sessions that were each an hour long. Some of this process was also traditional talk therapy in between the EMDR. I found EMDR not helpful in treating my traumas.”

“It was extremely triggering and the therapist pushed me into a lot of it. She would try to help me regroup by taking deep breaths and little breaks in between. But I always felt drained after each session and even more triggered with PTSD.”

Helen would not recommend EMDR for another person:

“I do not think I would personally recommend EMDR to another person for a trauma. I believe the therapist shoved me into it too soon and left me for days swirling in the emotions of that. I have heard it can be wonderful and healing for others. For me, it triggered too much to soon and my experienced left me more traumatized. I can’t think of those (EMDR) coping skills and techniques without feeling overwhelmed with memories.” 

Conclusions

As we can see from real women’s experiences, EMDR was extremely triggering to two of the women, but resolved emotional distress well for the two other women. Again we are reminded that one size does not fit all when it comes to treating mental health.

The women’s experiences indicated that when working with EMDR for trauma, even experienced and trusted therapists encountered strong triggering responses in their clients. In these instances, these therapists needed to know how to appropriately re-group and therapeutically support their clients either in the session and/or be appropriately available outside of scheduled sessions.

It was not appropriate for a therapist to urge a client to try or keep using EMDR if the client did not really want to, or if the client was having an overall non-therapeutic effect.

As we can see from these real women’s experiences, the treatment of post-traumatic stress has the potential to be devastating to the client as far as awakening or re-triggering compartmentalized past emotional distress.

In this small article and small example, it is interesting to me that the four women who volunteered to share their stories in this small had extreme reactions to EMDR, none neutral. These results reinforce my usual conservative approach to managing emotional distress, that is, if one is suffering from debilitating mental and emotional distress, it is best to consult with a licensed professional.

What I find empowering about these interviews is that ALL of these women VALUED their mental health and were brave enough to seek help. Fight the stigma! Don’t be afraid to get help!

Author’s Note: None of these women were or are my clients. I sought out non-clients for the purpose of these interviews.

References

Nonacs, R. (2006). A deeper shade of blue. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kathy Morelli Birth Trauma, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Depression, Do No Harm, EMDR, Evidence Based Medicine, Maternal Mental Health, Perinatal Mood Disorders, Postpartum Depression, Pregnancy Complications, PTSD, Research, Trauma work EMDR, guest posts, Kathy Morelli, maternal mental health, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after childbirth, postpartum depression, PTSD, trauma, traumatic birth

by Mark Sloan M.D.

Today’s guest post is written by Dr. Mark Sloan, pediatrician and author of Birth Day: A Pediatrician Explores the Science, the History and the Wonder of Childbirth.  Dr. Sloan shares information and current research on delayed cord clamping after birth, in a helpful Q&A style format that consumers and professionals can use to discuss this important topic.

_____________________

Many maternity care providers continue to clamp the umbilical cord immediately after an uncomplicated vaginal birth, even though the significant neonatal benefits of delayed cord clamping (usually defined as 2 to 3 minutes after birth) are now well known.

In some cases this continued practice is due to a misunderstanding of placental physiology in the first few minutes after birth. In others, human nature plays a role: We are often reluctant to change the way we were taught to do things, even in the face of clear evidence that contradicts that teaching.

Though there is no strong scientific support for immediate cord clamping (ICC), entrenched medical habits can be glacially slow in changing. Here are some often-heard objections to delayed cord clamping (DCC), and how an advocate for delayed clamping might respond to them:

1) I have a very busy practice. DCC takes too much time!

Not really, especially when you consider the benefits. Nearly one-third of a baby’s total blood volume resides in the placenta at birth. Half of that blood is transfused into the baby by 1 minute of age. By 3 minutes, more than 90% of the transfusion is complete. (1)

 2) Immediate clamping helps prevent severe postpartum hemorrhage.

There is no convincing evidence to support this view. Several large studies, including a 2009 Cochrane review of 5 trials involving more than 2,200 women, have found no significant difference between ICC and DCC in terms of postpartum hemorrhage or severe postpartum hemorrhage. (2-6, 10)

 3) A healthy, term baby doesn’t get much benefit from delayed clamping.

Though this is a commonly held belief, it’s definitely untrue.

Whether a fetus is premature or full term, approximately one-third of its total blood volume resides in the placenta. This is equal to the volume of blood that will be needed to fully perfuse the fetal lungs, liver, and kidneys at birth.

In addition to the benefits that come with adequate iron stores (see below), babies whose cords are clamped at 2 to 3 minutes—and thus, who have an increased total blood volume compared with their immediately-clamped peers—have a smoother cardiopulmonary transition at birth.

A third benefit: stem cells, which play an essential role in the development of the immune, respiratory, cardiovascular, and central nervous systems, among many other functions. The concentration of stem cells in fetal blood is higher than at any other time of life. ICC leaves nearly one-third of these critical cells in the placenta. (1,3,4,6-10)

 4) Okay, so delayed clamping means a baby gets more blood and more iron. But iron deficiency isn’t really a problem in first-world countries, right?

Wrong. At least 10% of the general U.S. toddler population (1-3 years of age) is iron deficient, with the prevalence rising well above 20% in selected ethnic and socioeconomic populations.

Immediate cord clamping is only one of many factors that contribute to iron deficiency in early childhood. But babies who start out life low on iron have a very difficult time catching up. Delayed cord clamping provides a baby with as much as a 4- to 6-month supply of iron. (1,3,6-10)

 5) Doesn’t iron deficiency just make kids tired?

Iron deficiency does much more damage than that. Early infancy is a time of rapid brain growth and development, and iron is essential to that process. Studies of infants with iron deficiency have found specific deficits in cognitive processing (including attention and memory) which may lead to permanently decreased intellectual functioning. Making matters even worse, children with severe iron deficiency often exhibit “emotional dulling”—difficulty engaging with caretakers and their environment—which can lead to long-lasting social-emotional deficits. For many reasons, early infancy is a particularly bad time to be low on iron. (1,11)

 6) Don’t babies get plenty of iron from breast milk? 

Unfortunately, no. While breast milk contains a remarkable array of healthful components, a high concentration of iron isn’t one of them. This most likely has to do with maternal recovery from childbirth. A recuperating mother has her own urgent iron needs; replacing the blood typically lost in childbirth takes a lot of it. Nature intends babies to get most of the iron they’ll need for their early development from the placental blood reservoir, rather than from mother, and so comparatively little iron goes into breast milk.  (3,7)

 7) But the baby can lose significant blood volume back into the placenta (aka “backflow bleeding”) if clamping is delayed.

This is extremely unlikely in an uncomplicated birth. With some brief exceptions (e.g., between uterine contractions, or when a baby bears down during crying), blood flow immediately after birth is primarily one-way, from placenta to baby. Here’s a brief explanation of why this is true:

In a process that begins during labor and accelerates as the newborn begins to cry, the pulmonary blood vessels, which receive very little blood flow during pregnancy, open and fill. This relatively sudden change causes the newborn’s blood pressure to fall below the pressure in the placenta. Placental blood, driven by strong uterine contractions, follows the pressure gradient and flows through the umbilical vein into the baby.

As the newborn’s oxygen saturation increases, the umbilical arteries close, which stops nearly all blood flow from baby to placenta. The umbilical vein, which isn’t sensitive to oxygen, remains open somewhat longer, allowing a final bit of blood to flow from placenta to baby before it, too, closes.

The lack of significant “backflow bleeding” is confirmed by the fact that DCC results in ~ 30% greater neonatal blood volume than does ICC.  (1,12)

8) DCC can lead to dangerously high levels of neonatal jaundice.

Since bilirubin, the source of neonatal jaundice, originates in red blood cells, it seems logical that the increased blood volume associated with delayed clamping could lead to severe hyperbilirubinemia.

Yet while some studies have demonstrated mildly increased bilirubin levels in DCC babies in the first few days postpartum, most have found no significant difference between DCC and ICC.

This seeming paradox—relatively stable bilirubin levels in the face of substantially increased blood volume—may have to do with increased blood flow to the neonatal liver that comes with the higher total blood volume associated with DCC. Yes, more blood means more bilirubin, which in turn could mean more jaundice, but better blood flow allows the liver to process bilirubin more efficiently.  (3,4,6,7,9,10)

 9) Delayed clamping can lead to neonatal hyperviscocity—“thick blood” that can cause kidney damage and strokes.

DCC can lead to a somewhat higher neonatal hematocrit than ICC, which isn’t surprising given the additional blood volume. Yet, despite fears of thicker blood “sludging” in organs like the brain and kidneys, no studies have demonstrated this to be the case from DCC alone. (4,6,9,10)

 10) You can’t have both the benefits of DCC and immediate skin-to-skin contact. If you place a newborn on his mother’s abdomen (i.e., above the level of the placenta), gravity will reduce the flow of blood from placenta to baby.

Gravity does matter, but mainly in terms of the speed of the placental transfusion. A baby held below the level of the placenta will receive a full transfusion in about 3 minutes; one held above the placenta (e.g., a baby in immediate skin-to-skin contact) will also receive a full transfusion—it just takes a little longer (about 5 minutes). (1,13)

 11) But what if the baby needs resuscitation? Isn’t it best to hand her over to the pediatrician immediately?

One of the first things a truly sick baby in the NICU is going to receive is fluid support—often as a 20 to 40 ml/kg bolus of normal saline or blood. Yet that is exactly what’s left behind in the placenta with ICC—about 30 ml/kg of whole blood. There is considerable evidence that sick babies, both term and preterm, have better outcomes with DCC. It’s better to let nature do its own transfusing. (14-16)

Summary: 

Delayed cord clamping promotes a healthy neonatal cardiopulmonary transition, prevents iron deficiency at a critical time in brain development, provides the newborn with a rich supply of stem cells, and helps sick neonates achieve better outcomes—all with little apparent risk to mother or baby. The evidence of benefit from DCC is so compelling that the burden of proof must now lie with those who wish to continue the practice of immediate clamping, rather than with those who prefer—as nature intended—to wait.

What do you tell your patients, students and clients about delayed cord clamping?  Do you have a favorite resource or two that you like to share?  What are the community standards around delayed cord clamping in your community?  Are health care providers discussing this with their patients?  Do they have recommendations one way or another that you are hearing?  Please join in the discussion.- SM

References

1) Mercer JS, Erickson-Owens DA. Rethinking placental transfusion and cord clamping issues. Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing. July/September 2012 26:3; 202–217 doi: 10.1097/JPN.0b013e31825d2d9a

2) Andersson O, Hellstrom-Westas L, Andersson D, et al. Effects of delayed compared with early umbilical cord clamping on maternal postpartum hemorrhage and cord blood gas sampling: a randomized trial. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. Article first published online: 17 Oct, 2012. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01530.x

3) Chaparro, CM. Timing of umbilical cord clamping: effect on iron endowment of the newborn and later iron status. Nutrition Reviews. Volume 69, Issue Supplement s1, pages S30–S36, November 2011.

4) Ceriani Cernadas JM, Carroli G, Pellegrini L, et.al. The Effect of Timing of Cord Clamping on Neonatal Venous Hematocrit Values and Clinical Outcome at Term: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Pediatrics. Vol. 117 No. 4 April 1, 2006 pp. e779 -e786 (2,3 8,9(doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-1156). Published online March 27, 2006.

5) WHO. Department of Making Pregnancy Safer. WHO recommendations for the prevention of postpartum haemorrhage. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2007.

6) McDonald SJ, Middleton P. Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping of term infants on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004074. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004074.pub2.

7) Andersson O, Hellstrom-Westas L, Andersson D, Domellof M. Effect of delayed versus early umbilical cord clamping on neonatal outcomes and iron status at 4 months: a randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal. 2011; 343: d7157. Published online 2011 November 15. doi:  10.1136/bmj.d7157

8) Ceriani Cernadas JM, Carroli G, Pellegrini L, et.al. The effect of early and delayed umbilical cord clamping on ferritin levels in term infants at six months of life: a randomized, control trial. Arch Argent Pediatr. 2010; 108:201-208.

9) Hutton EK, Hassan ES. Late vs early clamping of the umbilical cord in full-term neonates: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. JAMA. 2007 Mar 21;297(11):1241-52.

10) McDonald SJ, Middleton P. Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping of term infants on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004074. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004074.pub2.

11) Carter RC, Jacobson JL, Burden MJ, et al. Iron deficiency anemia and cognitive function in infancy. Pediatrics. 2010; 126:2 pp e427-e434 (doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-2097).

12) Mercer JS, Skovgaard R. Neonatal Transitional Physiology: A New Paradigm. J Perinat Neonat Nursing 2002; 15(4) 56-75

13) Yao AC, Lind J. Effect of gravity on placental transfusion. Lancet. 1969; 2:505-508.

14) Mercer JS, Vohr BR, Erickson-Owens DA, et al. Seven-month developmental outcomes of very low-birth-weight infants enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of delayed versus immediate cord clamping. J Perinatol. 2010; 30:11-16.

15) Kinmond S, Aitchison TC, Holland BM, et al. Umbilical cord clamping and preterm infants: a randomized trial. British Medical Journal. 1993; 306:172-175.

16) Rabe H, Wacker, A, Hulskamp G, et al. A randomized controlled trial of delayed cord-clamping in very low-birth-weight preterm infants.  Eur J Pediatr. 2000; 159:775-777.

About Mark Sloan, M.D.

Mark Sloan has been a pediatrician and a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics for more than 25 years. Since 1982, he has practiced with the Permanente Medical Group in Sacramento and Santa Rosa, California, where he was Chief of Pediatrics from 1997 to 2002. He is an Assistant Clinical Professor in the Department of Community and Family Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Sloan’s first book, Birth Day: A Pediatrician Explores the Science, the History and the Wonder of Childbirth was published in 2009 by Ballantine Books. His writing has appeared in the Chicago Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco Examiner, and Notre Dame Magazine, among other publications.  Dr. Sloan can be reached through his blog.

 

Sharon Muza American Academy of Pediatrics, Delayed Cord Clamping, Do No Harm, Evidence Based Medicine, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, informed Consent, Medical Interventions, Newborns, Research, Third Stage, Uncategorized guest post, informed Consent, leaving the umbilical cord patent in third stage, Mark Sloan, newborn immune system, newborn iron stores, newborns, placenta, risks of early clamping and cutting umbilical cord, umbilical cord clamping, why is placental blood important?

Today, S&S contributor Jackie Levine discusses the potential risks of routine cervical checks near term and how to help your clients and students be prepared to have a discussion with their health care provider about the necessity of such exams. – SM

There are some studies that show a link between routine weekly pelvic exams in the last month or so of pregnancy and an increase in rupture of membranes (ROM) that occur well before labor was meant begin, meaning the membranes have ruptured prematurely, (adding a P to ROM, for premature rupture).   The natural onset of labor may be a week or perhaps only days away, but everything is not quite ready, and if effective labor does not begin induction frequently follows.  And when induction fails, as often it will, since the rupture was premature, and the body and the baby are not ready, cesarean is often the outcome.

Many women find that their health care providers may start doing pelvic exams at about 37 weeks gestation.  Women should consider asking their doctor or midwife whether these exams are necessary to insure the health and safety of herself and her baby, before providing consent for this invasive procedure.  When I discuss these near term cervical exams with my childbirth class students and look at the studies, mothers-to-be have to ask themselves whether the benefits of weekly exams outweigh the other risks; potential PROM, induction and the increased possibility of cesarean section.

“How do I tell my health care provider that I don’t want an exam, and not have those uncomfortable moments when my doctor or midwife thinks I’m defying him or her and not letting them do what they always do?”  That’s the common and sensible worry, that our students may have, but if we provide an opportunity to role-play with our students and clients and also provide the studies, they will feel confident about having this discussion. They will know the facts and are informed health consumers who could consider saying “Oh, I just don’t want that exam today, so can we do it next week?” They might also share that they’ve researched this topic, mention the studies and ask how routine exams week after week will help insure good health.

An older study examining the relationship between late term pelvic exams and the incidence of PROM stated:

 In the 174 patients on whom pelvic examinations were done weekly starting at 37 weeks gestation, the incidence of PROM was 18%,   which was a significant increase (P=.001).  The primary cesarean section rate was comparable in both groups with PROM; however, the overall primary cesarean rate when PROM occurred was found to be twice that of the remaining population. The study suggests that routine pelvic examinations may be (sic) a significant contributing factor to the incidence of PROM. Women with uncomplicated pregnancies were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The author theorizes that the probing finger carries up and deposits on the cervix bacteria and acidic vaginal secretions capable of penetrating the mucous plug and causing sufficient low-grade inflammation or sub-clinical infection to rupture membranes.“  “It would therefore seem prudent to recommend that no pelvic examinations be done routinely in the third trimester unless a valid medical indication [sic] exists to examine the cervix … especially since the information gained from these routine examinations is often of little or no benefit to either the physician or the patient.” (Lenahan, 1984.)

We have all been subtly bullied at one time or another by those in positions of authority, and it’s easy to understand the courage and confidence needed to question a caregiver. It’s a mother’s right and responsibility first to know and then to question, but confidence is the key.  We must make an effort to give real meaning to a women’s right to choose, and to the principle of informed refusal.  The American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) has addressed informed refusal several times with its membership since at least 1992¹, speaking powerfully  about the autonomy of the individual.  Although these writings and bulletins are aimed mainly at assuring legal protection for caregivers, they are a resounding affirmation of the legal and moral right of the patient to decide for herself.

Since the studies assert that routine exams are neither predictive nor probative, the doctor or midwife must be able to say something medically strong to counter the available studies.  When mothers have asked their providers for the reasons to do an exam, they bring a myriad of interesting answers back to class for discussion, but rarely any facts or science.  Remember, ACOG  itself published a study last year examining the basis for its care guidelines and found that “One third of the recommendations put forth by the Congress in its practice bulletins are based on good and consistent scientific evidence” ACOG, 2011) meaning Level A, and that gives us pause to consider the 70% of practices represented by Levels B and C . Care providers will often reconsider when an informed mother-to-be can ask politely and tactfully, about the science that recommends a weekly routine cervical assessment.

Again, women should be able to weigh the risks of routine exams against the possibility of that cascade of interventions that follow on with PROM, interventions that will, at the least, lead to an uncomfortable and harder-to-manage induction, and at worst, put our students and clients on that gurney ride into the operating room.

When a mother is motivated to discuss routine pelvic exams with her caregiver, it may be the first test of the mutual trust and respect she hopes for in that relationship.  Until that point in her pregnancy, she may not have had the opportunity, or the necessity to assert her rights as a maternity patient.  She may have refused to have a routine sonogram or two because her insurance policy would not cover extra routine assessments, but refusing pelvic exams unless there is a valid medical reason will tell her how little or much her HCP is willing to act on best evidence, give her individuated care and show respect for her informed refusal.

The first time she refuses the exam may not be an accurate opportunity for her to judge; many caregivers will let refusal ride that once, but as pregnancy nears term, most docs begin to be insistent about cervical assessment, even without medical indication. A mother-to-be can begin to learn her caregiver’s view of best-evidence care and his or her willingness to listen to her so that she will have an idea, going forward, of how best to assert her rights, with knowledge and confidence in herself, and can get support she may need in our classes.

In a Science & Sensibility post in May 2011, I talked about the importance of giving mothers the same studies that caregivers have access to.  What I said then about giving our classes the actual studies, along with discussion, still applies:

“…perhaps we need to give women a different kind of “evidence”, by giving them a look into the medical community.  If women can know more of what goes on inside the profession, if they know a bit of what the docs know, they feel a different level of empowerment.  They feel a gravitas….Not only do they know that the evidence exists somewhere out there…they see it; they own copies of the studies. They feel trusted with special information that they would never otherwise have access to. In addition to learning to trust their bodies, in addition to knowing how birth works, in addition to practicing comfort measures, they learn about what goes on behind the scenes.  It expands their sense of control and choice. “  

Refusing to have routine pelvic exams in those last weeks of pregnancy is a real opportunity for our students and clients to learn how to ask for, even insist on, best-evidence care for themselves and their babies.  It’s certainly worth a try, and we can support them in the last weeks in a positive way with lots of opportunity for role-play and discussion as they report back to class and share their experiences with informed refusal.

How do you bring up the topic of regular cervical exams for women who are not in labor?  Do you talk about this with your clients and students?  What are your favorite resources for presenting this and facilitating discussions?  Have your students shared stories about their experiences.?  Are you a health care provider?  What are your feelings on routine pelvic exams at the end of pregnancy?  Share your thoughts in our comment section. – SM

References:

ACOG: Ethical dimensions of informed consent: a compendium of selected publications, ACOG Committee Opinion 108. Washington DC, 1992.

ACOG Committee opinion. Informed refusal. Number 166, December 1995. Committee on Professional Liability. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. et al. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. (1996).

ACOG Committee Opinion No. 306. Informed refusal. ACOG Committee on Professional Liability, Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Dec;104(6):1465-6.

Lenahan, JP Jr., Relationship of antepartum pelvic examinations to premature rupture of the membranes. Journal Obstetrics Gynecology 1984, Jan:63(1):33-37.

Levine, J. (May 31, 2011) A Lamaze Story. Retrieved from http://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=2954

Vayssière, C. Contre le toucher vaginal systématique en obstétrique Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité, 2005, Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 69-74.

Wright JD, Pawar N, Gonzalez JS, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Simpson LL, Charles AS, D’Alton ME, Herzog TJ, Scientific Evidence Underlying the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Practice Bulletins, Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Sep;118(3):505-12.

photo credit: www.flickr.com/photos/nathansnostalgia/498100786/

Jackie Levine Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Do No Harm, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, informed Consent, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, Push for Your Baby, Uncategorized ACOG, cervical exams, Childbirth Education, guest post, interventions, Jackie Levine, labor induction, maternity care systems, prenatal care, rupture of membranes

A recent study of elective induction at term purports to show that it would reduce perinatal mortality without affecting spontaneous birth rates, although it would increase admission to a special neonatal care unit if done before 41 weeks. The study, conducted in Scotland, analyzed outcomes of 1,271,549 women carrying a singleton, head-down baby of 37 to 40 weeks gestation who gave birth between 1981 and 2007. (Forty-one weeks was considered postterm.) Women with prior cesarean, breech baby, or placenta previa were excluded. Elective induction was defined as induction with no medical indications (hypertensive or kidney disorders, thromboembolic disease, diabetes, liver disorders, pre-existing medical disorder, antenatal investigation of abnormality, suspected fetal abnormality, fetal compromise, or previous stillbirth or neonatal death), and 176,136 women met these criteria. Perinatal mortality was defined as stillbirth or death within the first month, excluding deaths associated with congenital anomalies. Outcomes were adjusted for maternal age, parity (no prior births vs. one or more prior births), time period, and birth weight.

Investigators reported outcomes by week in two ways: women electively induced compared with women not electively induced who delivered after that week and women electively induced compared with women not electively induced who delivered in or after that week. I will report outcomes according to the second method because it is less biased.

Perinatal mortality rates declined from 2.4 per 1000 at 37 weeks to 1.6 per 1000 at 41 weeks in the “not electively induced” population and varied from 0.9 to 0.6 per 1000 in the electively induced population, showing no trend, which meant that the excess

perinatal mortality rate fell from 2.3 per 1000 more deaths at 37 weeks in the “not electively induced” population to 0.9 more at 41 weeks. That would seem to clinch the argument for elective term induction were it not for one fatal flaw: investigators did not compare similar populations. They isolated a low-risk—I may even say ultra-low-risk—group of women and compared them with everyone else, including women with the high-risk conditions listed above! Finding lower perinatal mortality rates should not be surprising. It would have been extraordinary if they had not.

Even with that advantage, more babies were admitted to special or intensive care nurseries after elective induction at every week through 40 weeks, which contradicts the current belief that elective delivery at 39 weeks poses no excess risk. Excesses declined from 94 more babies per 1000 with elective induction at 37 weeks to 10 more babies per 1000 at 40 weeks. (At 41 weeks, 3 more babies per 1000 were admitted to special or intensive care in the “not electively induced” population.)

What about finding similar spontaneous vaginal birth rates? Spontaneous birth rates were, indeed, similar between groups, but more women delivered via cesarean surgery in the electively induced group. Depending on the week, 0.3 to 1.5 more women per 100 electively induced had cesareans. Spontaneous birth rates were similar because the cesarean excess was offset by an excess of instrumental vaginal deliveries at each week in the “no elective induction” group. An excess of instrumental deliveries is concerning primarily because of the increased likelihood of anal sphincter injury; however, an excess in cesarean deliveries is far more serious, carrying as it does increased likelihood of severe maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality in both current and future pregnancies.

Furthermore, the investigators chose not to report cesarean rates according to parity. Women with a prior vaginal birth or births will be little affected by induction, but first-time mothers are a different story. Studies (see references below) comparing term elective induction with spontaneous onset report that elective induction roughly doubles the chance of cesarean with excesses ranging from 3 to 31 more women per 100 having labor end in cesarean. Three studies (Hannah et al. 1996, Kassab et al, 2011; Pavicic et al. 2009.) specifically evaluating elective induction at 41 weeks compared with expectant management for at least one more week in low-risk first-time mothers report a remarkably similar excess: 8 to 9 more cesareans per 100 women induced electively. In first-time mothers, then, the excess cesarean surgery rate was almost certainly much greater than the excess rate in the Scottish population overall.

So there you have it. Does elective induction at term save babies? We don’t know because the investigators compared apples to oranges. It certainly increases likelihood of admittance to special or intensive neonatal care through 40 weeks, an excess all the more ominous because comparison women were not all low risk. It’s also a safe bet that it substantially increases cesarean surgery rates in first-time mothers going by what other studies have found. And, again, the excess would likely have been greater even in the population overall had investigators compared low-risk women to low-risk women. Lesson learned: if you don’t look at what’s behind the curtain, you may get very misleading ideas of what is really going on.

Boulvain, M., Marcoux, S., Bureau, M., Fortier, M., & Fraser, W. (2001). Risks of induction of labour in uncomplicated term pregnancies Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol, 15(2), 131-138.

Cammu, H., Martens, G., Ruyssinck, G., & Amy, J. J. (2002). Outcome after elective labor induction in nulliparous women: A matched cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 186(2), 240-244.

Dublin, S., Lydon-Rochelle, M., Kaplan, R. C., Watts, D. H., & Critchlow, C. W. (2000). Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor without an identified indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 183(4), 986-994.

Ehrenthal, D. B., Jiang, X., & Strobino, D. M. (2010). Labor induction and the risk of a cesarean delivery among nulliparous women at term. Obstet Gynecol, 116(1), 35-42.

Glantz, J. C. (2005). Elective induction vs. Spontaneous labor associations and outcomes. J Reprod Med, 50(4), 235-240.

Le Ray, C., Carayol, M., Breart, G., & Goffinet, F. (2007). Elective induction of labor: Failure to follow guidelines and risk of cesarean delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 86(6), 657-665.

Luthy, D. A., Malmgren, J. A., & Zingheim, R. W. (2004). Cesarean delivery after elective induction in nulliparous women: The physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 191(5), 1511-1515.

Macer, J. A., Macer, C. L., & Chan, L. S. (1992). Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: A retrospective study of complications and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 166(6 Pt 1), 1690-1696; discussion 1696-1697.

Maslow, A. S., & Sweeny, A. L. (2000). Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term. Obstet Gynecol, 95(6 Pt 1), 917-922.

Prysak, M., & Castronova, F. C. (1998). Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: A case-control analysis of safety and efficacy. Obstet Gynecol, 92(1), 47-52.

Seyb, S. T., Berka, R. J., Socol, M. L., & Dooley, S. L. (1999). Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol, 94(4), 600-607.

Vahratian, A., Zhang, J., Troendle, J. F., Sciscione, A. C., & Hoffman, M. K. (2005). Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol, 105(4), 698-704.

van Gemund, N., Hardeman, A., Scherjon, S. A., & Kanhai, H. H. (2003). Intervention rates after elective induction of labor compared to labor with a spontaneous onset. A matched cohort study. Gynecol Obstet Invest, 56(3), 133-138.

Vardo, J. H., Thornburg, L. L., & Glantz, J. C. (2011). Maternal and neonatal morbidity among nulliparous women undergoing elective induction of labor. J Reprod Med, 56(1-2), 25-30.

Vrouenraets, F. P., Roumen, F. J., Dehing, C. J., van den Akker, E. S., Aarts, M. J., & Scheve, E. J. (2005). Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol, 105(4), 690-697.

Yeast, J. D., Jones, A., & Poskin, M. (1999). Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: A review of 7001 consecutive inductions Am J Obstet Gynecol, 180(3 Pt 1), 628-633.

Henci Goer Cesarean Birth, Do No Harm, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, New Research, Research, Uncategorized best evidence maternity care, cesarean, elective cesarean, Evidence Based Medicine, guest, Henci Goer, induction, labor induction, NICU, Reducing Risk of Elective Induction, risks of induction

This is a guest post by Trish DeTura, RN, CNM, MS, MAMA President

Pregnancy is such an exciting time in a woman’s life filled with the great wonder of what is to be. However, it may also be a time of great stress as a woman’s body goes through a great metamorphosis. Some of the common discomforts of pregnancy are round ligament pain, indigestion, aching back and pelvic pressure, just to name a few.

Add to this list the mental/emotional challenges a woman experiences in pregnancy surrounding the uncertainty around motherhood, sadness and depression.

One wonders as a practitioner, what can I offer this woman that will benefit her and her unborn baby?

While attending the Art of Birthing Conference in the New York Academy of Medicine in 2000, I found a wonderful complementary technique.

Complementary techniques are popularly used by many women for the relief of aches and pains during pregnancy and birthing (Jones et al, 2012). Leanna Jones and her colleagues (2012) found complementary methods were most often offered and used in midwife-led births. Relaxation, acupressure/acupuncture, massage and immersion in water were found to provide pain relief and positive maternal outcome without invasive side effects. Also, regarding acupuncture/acupressure, a decrease in the use of forceps, ventouse and cesarean section was noted (Jones et al; 2012).

I learned about Maya Abdominal Massage from Rosita Arvigo and Ms. Hortense Robinson. Rosita is a naprapath, herbalist and teacher of Maya medicine. She who apprenticed with Don Elijio Pante, a traditional Maya healer, in Belize, Central America. Ms. Robinson is a midwife.

They shared how the Arvigo Technique of Maya Abdominal Therapy (ATMAT), restores the body to its natural balance by correcting the positions of organs that have shifted and restrict the flow of lymph, blood, nerve and qi energy. Thus, ATMAT promotes homeostasis.

As a result of ATMAT, the pregnant woman experiences an increase of arterial blood carrying oxygen, nutrients and minerals to the mother and her unborn along with removal of any waste via the venous system and lymph. In addition, the mom experiences a removal of any congestion or blockages enhancing better hormonal, nerve flow and flow of chi.

I thought this all made good physiologic and common sense. I was hooked! Onward to learning this technique to support women with all kinds of challenges then onward to learning the pregnancy aspect of this method.

This gentle, non-invasive approach of this abdominal massage begins at 20 weeks of gestation continuing up to when the woman delivers. ATMAT eases the common discomforts of pregnancy.

I find it to be a lovely complement to a midwifery practice, the mom gets to focus on her baby and her developing baby intimately, thus preparing her to open psychologically and physically to her pregnancy and birth.

Tiffany Field, Ph.D. at the Touch Research Institute in Miami, has collected extensive data on the profound healing effects of touch, which is what ATMAT is- healing and nurturing touch- for both the mother and her unborn.

In the Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, Field (2010) published a study demonstrating that regular massage during pregnancy results in: decreased anxiety, improved mood, reduced back pain, improved sleep patterns, reduced stress hormone levels, fewer complications during labor and fewer complications for infants following birth.

Further, Field (2010) reports women who have received massage therapy experienced significantly less pain and their labors were on the average three hours shorter.

The data collected by the midwives providing ATMAT to their pregnant clients supports these findings. In addition to the shortening of labors, mothers who receive ATMAT bond with their unborn baby leading to less postpartum depression. This has been substantiated by Dr. Tiffany Field and her colleagues in a 2009 study revealing that postpartum depression was lessened as a result of prenatal massage.

It is my hope that one day the Arvigo Technique of Maya Abdominal Therapy will be recognized as an essential and vital aspect of maternity care. To learn more about this great modality please go to: www.Arvigotherapy.com

References:

Field, T. (2010). Pregnancy and labor massage therapy. Expert Review of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 5, 177-181.

Field, T., Diego, M., Hernandez-Reif, M., Deeds, O., & Figueiredo, B. (2009). Pregnancy massage reduces prematurity, low birthweight and postpartum depression. Infant Behavior & Development, 32, 454-460.

Jones L, Othman M, Dowswell T, Alfirevic Z, Gates S, Newburn M, Jordan S, Lavender T, Neilson JP.Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD009234. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009234.pub2

Trish DeTura, RN, CNM, MS specializes in the Arvigo Technique of Maya Abdominal Massage, a non-invasive and natural technique of restoring health to the reproductive organs. She is in private practice in Hoboken, NJ. Contact her at trishdetura@gmailcom

Kathy Morelli Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Continuing Education, Do No Harm, Guest Posts, Midwifery, Pain Management, Uncategorized complementary techniques, massage, Maya Abdominal Massage, midwife, Midwifery Care, mindbody techniques, relaxation, relaxation in childbirth