Early skin-to-skin contact for mothers and their healthy newborn infants

Elizabeth R Moore, Nils Bergman, Gene C Anderson, Nancy Medley, Elizabeth R Moore, Nils Bergman, Gene C Anderson, Nancy Medley

Abstract

Background: Mother-infant separation post birth is common. In standard hospital care, newborn infants are held wrapped or dressed in their mother's arms, placed in open cribs or under radiant warmers. Skin-to-skin contact (SSC) begins ideally at birth and should last continually until the end of the first breastfeeding. SSC involves placing the dried, naked baby prone on the mother's bare chest, often covered with a warm blanket. According to mammalian neuroscience, the intimate contact inherent in this place (habitat) evokes neuro-behaviors ensuring fulfillment of basic biological needs. This time frame immediately post birth may represent a 'sensitive period' for programming future physiology and behavior.

Objectives: To assess the effects of immediate or early SSC for healthy newborn infants compared to standard contact on establishment and maintenance of breastfeeding and infant physiology.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (17 December 2015), made personal contact with trialists, consulted the bibliography on kangaroo mother care (KMC) maintained by Dr Susan Ludington, and reviewed reference lists of retrieved studies.

Selection criteria: Randomized controlled trials that compared immediate or early SSC with usual hospital care.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

Main results: We included 46 trials with 3850 women and their infants; 38 trials with 3472 women and infants contributed data to our analyses. Trials took place in 21 countries, and most recruited small samples (just 12 trials randomized more than 100 women). Eight trials included women who had SSC after cesarean birth. All infants recruited to trials were healthy, and the majority were full term. Six trials studied late preterm infants (greater than 35 weeks' gestation). No included trial met all criteria for good quality with respect to methodology and reporting; no trial was successfully blinded, and all analyses were imprecise due to small sample size. Many analyses had statistical heterogeneity due to considerable differences between SSC and standard care control groups. Results for womenSSC women were more likely than women with standard contact to be breastfeeding at one to four months post birth, though there was some uncertainty in this estimate due to risks of bias in included trials (average risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.43; participants = 887; studies = 14; I² = 41%; GRADE: moderate quality). SSC women also breast fed their infants longer, though data were limited (mean difference (MD) 64 days, 95% CI 37.96 to 89.50; participants = 264; studies = six; GRADE:low quality); this result was from a sensitivity analysis excluding one trial contributing all of the heterogeneity in the primary analysis. SSC women were probably more likely to exclusively breast feed from hospital discharge to one month post birth and from six weeks to six months post birth, though both analyses had substantial heterogeneity (from discharge average RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.49; participants = 711; studies = six; I² = 44%; GRADE: moderate quality; from six weeks average RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.90; participants = 640; studies = seven; I² = 62%; GRADE: moderate quality).Women in the SCC group had higher mean scores for breastfeeding effectiveness, with moderate heterogeneity (IBFAT (Infant Breastfeeding Assessment Tool) score MD 2.28, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.15; participants = 384; studies = four; I² = 41%). SSC infants were more likely to breast feed successfully during their first feed, with high heterogeneity (average RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.67; participants = 575; studies = five; I² = 85%). Results for infantsSSC infants had higher SCRIP (stability of the cardio-respiratory system) scores overall, suggesting better stabilization on three physiological parameters. However, there were few infants, and the clinical significance of the test was unclear because trialists reported averages of multiple time points (standardized mean difference (SMD) 1.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.72; participants = 81; studies = two; GRADE low quality). SSC infants had higher blood glucose levels (MD 10.49, 95% CI 8.39 to 12.59; participants = 144; studies = three; GRADE: low quality), but similar temperature to infants in standard care (MD 0.30 degree Celcius (°C) 95% CI 0.13 °C to 0.47 °C; participants = 558; studies = six; I² = 88%; GRADE: low quality). Women and infants after cesarean birthWomen practicing SSC after cesarean birth were probably more likely to breast feed one to four months post birth and to breast feed successfully (IBFAT score), but analyses were based on just two trials and few women. Evidence was insufficient to determine whether SSC could improve breastfeeding at other times after cesarean. Single trials contributed to infant respiratory rate, maternal pain and maternal state anxiety with no power to detect group differences. SubgroupsWe found no differences for any outcome when we compared times of initiation (immediate less than 10 minutes post birth versus early 10 minutes or more post birth) or lengths of contact time (60 minutes or less contact versus more than 60 minutes contact).

Authors' conclusions: Evidence supports the use of SSC to promote breastfeeding. Studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm physiological benefit for infants during transition to extra-uterine life and to establish possible dose-response effects and optimal initiation time. Methodological quality of trials remains problematic, and small trials reporting different outcomes with different scales and limited data limit our confidence in the benefits of SSC for infants. Our review included only healthy infants, which limits the range of physiological parameters observed and makes their interpretation difficult.

Conflict of interest statement

Dr Anderson, Dr Bergman and Dr Moore have conducted trials that have been included in this review.

Anderson 2003 was conducted by Dr Anderson. Chwo 1999, Punthmatharith 2001, Shiau 1997 and Syfrett 1993 were conducted by students of Dr Anderson’s at Case Western Reserve University. Risk of bias for all these trials was assessed by T Dowswell, Research Associate, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth, Dr Moore and Dr Bergman.

Dr Bergman conducted Bergman 2004 and was a consultant for Luong 2015. T Dowswell, Dr Anderson and Dr Moore evaluated Bergman 2004 for Risk of Bias and N Medley, Research Associate, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth, Dr Anderson and Dr Moore evaluated Luong 2015 for risk of bias. Dr Bergman has received lecture fees for teaching and demonstrating on Skin‐to‐Skin Contact theory and techniques, and produces promotional products for sale. Further, he has participated on a South African patent in the name of the University of Cape Town for a neonatal autonomic nervous system monitoring device. He is an active trialist working on skin‐to‐skin contact for low birth weight newborns.

Dr Moore conducted Moore 2005 while a student of Dr Anderson’s at Vanderbilt University. Moore 2005 was evaluated for risk of bias by T Dowswell and Dr Bergman.

Nancy Medley's work was financially supported by the University of Liverpool's Harris‐Wellbeing of Women Preterm Birth Centre research award and by a grant to University of Liverpool from the World Health Organization.

Figures

1
1
1 Study flow diagram.
2
2
'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
4
4
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, outcome: 1.1 Breastfeeding 1 month to 4 months post birth.
1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 1 Breastfeeding 1 month to 4 months post birth.
1.2. Analysis
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 2 Duration of breastfeeding in days.
1.3. Analysis
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 3 SCRIP score first 6 hours post birth.
1.4. Analysis
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 4 Blood glucose mg/dL at 75‐180 minutes post birth.
1.5. Analysis
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 5 Infant axillary temperature 90 minutes to 2.5 hours post birth.
1.6. Analysis
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 6 Exclusive breastfeeding at hospital discharge to 1 month post birth.
1.7. Analysis
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 7 Exclusive breastfeeding 6 weeks to 6 months post birth.
1.8. Analysis
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 8 Breastfeeding status day 28 to 1 month post birth.
1.9. Analysis
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 9 Breastfeeding 1 year post birth.
1.10. Analysis
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 10 Success of the first breastfeeding (IBFAT score).
1.11. Analysis
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 11 Successful first breastfeeding (IBFAT score 10‐12 or BAT score 8‐12).
1.12. Analysis
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 12 Suckled during the first 2 hours post birth.
1.13. Analysis
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 13 Mean variation in maternal breast temp. 30‐120 minutes post birth.
1.14. Analysis
1.14. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 14 Breast engorgement ‐ pain, tension, hardness 3 days post birth.
1.15. Analysis
1.15. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 15 Heart rate 75 minutes to 2 hours post birth.
1.16. Analysis
1.16. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 16 Respiratory rate 75 minutes ‐ 2 hours post birth.
1.17. Analysis
1.17. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 17 Infant did not exceed parameters for stability.
1.18. Analysis
1.18. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 18 Transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit.
1.19. Analysis
1.19. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 19 Infant body weight change (grams) day 14 post birth.
1.20. Analysis
1.20. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 20 Infant hospital length of stay in hours.
1.21. Analysis
1.21. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 21 Not crying for > 1 minute during 90 minutes.
1.22. Analysis
1.22. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 22 Amount of crying in minutes during a 75‐minute observation period.
1.23. Analysis
1.23. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 23 PCERA Maternal positive affective involvement and responsiveness 12 months post birth.
1.24. Analysis
1.24. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 24 PCERA Dydadic mutuality and reciprocity 12 months post birth.
1.25. Analysis
1.25. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 25 Mother's most certain preference for same postdelivery care in the future.
1.26. Analysis
1.26. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 26 Maternal state anxiety 8 hours to 3 days post birth.
1.27. Analysis
1.27. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 27 Maternal parenting confidence at 1 month post birth.
1.28. Analysis
1.28. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 28 Breastfeeding 1 month to 4 months post birth: Sensitivity analysis.
1.29. Analysis
1.29. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 29 Duration of breastfeeding in days: Sensitivity analysis.
1.30. Analysis
1.30. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 30 Heart rate 75 minutes to 2 hrs post birth: Sensitivity analysis.
1.31. Analysis
1.31. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 31 Respiratory rate 75 minutes to 2 hours post birth: Sensitivity analysis.
1.32. Analysis
1.32. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 32 Exclusive bf discharge ‐ Marin 2010 sensitivity analysis.
1.33. Analysis
1.33. Analysis
Comparison 1 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants, Outcome 33 NICU admission ‐ Marin 2010 sensitivity analysis.
2.1. Analysis
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants after cesarean birth, Outcome 1 Breastfeeding 1 month to 4 months post birth.
2.2. Analysis
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants after cesarean birth, Outcome 2 Exclusive breastfeeding at hospital discharge to 1 month post birth.
2.3. Analysis
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants after cesarean birth, Outcome 3 Exclusive breastfeeding 6 weeks to 6 months post birth.
2.4. Analysis
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants after cesarean birth, Outcome 4 Success of the first breastfeeding (IBFAT score).
2.5. Analysis
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants after cesarean birth, Outcome 5 Respiratory rate 75 minutes ‐ 2 hours post birth.
2.6. Analysis
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants after cesarean birth, Outcome 6 Maternal pain 4 hours post‐cesarean birth.
2.7. Analysis
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2 Immediate or Early skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact for healthy infants after cesarean birth, Outcome 7 Maternal state anxiety 8 hours to 3 days post birth.
3.1. Analysis
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact by time of initiation, Outcome 1 Breastfeeding 1 month to 4 months post birth.
3.2. Analysis
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact by time of initiation, Outcome 2 Duration of breastfeeding in days.
3.3. Analysis
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact by time of initiation, Outcome 3 SCRIP score first 6 hours post birth.
3.4. Analysis
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 Skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact by time of initiation, Outcome 4 Blood glucose mg/dL at 75‐90 minutes post birth.
3.5. Analysis
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3 Skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact by time of initiation, Outcome 5 Infant axillary temperature 90 minutes to 2.5 hours post birth.
4.1. Analysis
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact by dosage (length of contact time), Outcome 1 Breastfeeding 1 month to 4 months post birth.
4.2. Analysis
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact by dosage (length of contact time), Outcome 2 Duration of breastfeeding in days.
4.3. Analysis
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 Skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact by dosage (length of contact time), Outcome 3 SCRIP score first 6 hours post birth.
4.4. Analysis
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4 Skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact by dosage (length of contact time), Outcome 4 Blood glucose mg/dL at 75‐90 minutes post birth.
4.5. Analysis
4.5. Analysis
Comparison 4 Skin‐to‐skin versus standard contact by dosage (length of contact time), Outcome 5 Infant axillary temperature 90 minutes to 2.5 hours post birth.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel