Objective To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of umbilical cord milking in preterm infants.
Design Randomised controlled trials comparing umbilical cord milking with delayed cord clamping/immediate cord clamping in preterm infants were identified by searching databases, clinical trial registries and reference list of relevant studies in November 2019. Fixed effects model was used to pool the data on various clinically relevant outcomes.
Main outcome measures Mortality and morbidities in preterm neonates.
Results Nineteen studies (2014 preterm infants) were included. Five studies (n=922) compared cord milking with delayed cord clamping, whereas 14 studies (n=1092) compared milking with immediate cord clamping. Cord milking, as opposed to delayed cord clamping, significantly increased the risk of intraventricular haemorrhage (grade III or more) (risk ratio (RR): 1.95 (95% CI 1.01 to 3.76), p=0.05). When compared with immediate cord clamping, cord milking reduced the need for packed RBC transfusions (RR:0.56 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.73), p<0.001). There was limited information on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. The grade of evidence was moderate or low for the various outcomes analysed.
Conclusion Umbilical cord milking, when compared with delayed cord clamping, significantly increased the risk of severe intraventricular haemorrhage in preterm infants, especially at lower gestational ages. Cord milking, when compared with immediate cord clamping, reduced the need for packed RBC transfusions but did not improve clinical outcomes. Hence, cord milking cannot be considered as placental transfusion strategy in preterm infants based on the currently available evidence.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors HB designed the study and drafted the initial manuscript. AA and VJ collected the data and carried out the initial analysis. NK conceptualised the study and critically reviewed the manuscript. SCR conducted literature search and critically reviewed the manuscript. Each author listed on the manuscript has seen and approved the submission of this version of the manuscript and takes full responsibility for the manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement Data are available on reasonable request.