ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Extra-uterine placental transfusion and intact-cord stabilisation of infants in caesarean sections: an intervention development and pilot-study (INTACT-1).
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKeeping the umbilical cord intact the first minutes after delivery is beneficial for both term and preterm infants. However, this may be challenging in caesarean sections (CS) due to lack of mobile resuscitation equipment, maintenance of sterility or concern for excessive maternal blood loss. The objective of this study was to develop and pilot-test extra-uterine placental transfusion and intact-cord stabilisation of infants in CS.
methodsThe intervention development process (phase 1) covered: (A) placenta delivery without cord clamping, (B) intact-cord stabilisation of the infant and (C) physiology-based cord clamping. Different scenarios were tested through in-situ simulation and adjusted through multiple feedback rounds. The involved staff were trained prior to pilot-testing (phase 2). Women having a CS in regional anaesthesia, expecting a term or near-term singleton infant were included in the pilot-study after written consent. Primary outcome was the proportion of successfully completed interventions. For assessment of safety, maternal estimated intraoperative blood loss, infant 5-minute Apgar scores and infant rectal temperature during stabilisation were compared to pre-defined accept criteria. Dry-electrode ECG (NeoBeat™) was used for early detection of infant heart rate. Any respiratory support was registered. Early skin-to-skin contact between mother and infant was attempted for vigorous infants.
resultsA detailed intervention protocol was developed and tested. Twenty-nine mother-infant-dyads were included in the pilot study. Gestational age ranged from 37 to 42 weeks. The intervention was successfully completed in 26 of 29 cases, of which 31% were planned CS. Median (SD) infant heart rates at one and five minutes were 159 (32) and 168 (21) beats per minute respectively. Eight infants (28%) had intact-cord respiratory support. One infant had a 5-minute Apgar score < 7 and three infants (10%) had rectal temperatures below 36.5 °C during the first 10-15 min after birth. Three mothers (10%) had estimated intraoperative blood loss > 1000 ml.
conclusionExtra-uterine placental transfusion to facilitate intact-cord stabilisation and physiology-based cord clamping for term and near-term infants delivered by CS was feasible according to predefined accept criteria. Further investigation of safety of this complex intervention in larger, comparative studies is warranted.
trial registrationRegional Committee for Medical Research Ethics Central Norway (REK-Midt), #399101.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.