# Anemia causes placental abruptions??????



## party_of_seven (May 10, 2004)

I was talking with an expecting mom today at church.

She said that her doc wanted to induce her at 37 weeks because of some new "cutting edge" study(that isn't even published yet







: ) that says that in women who have anemia during their pregnancy 70% of them will have a placental abruption at or near delivery(term). So because she was anemic they want to induce her early to avoid that risk.






















:







:
















She seems like a very intellegent woman. I told her that it makes no sense to me that they would use drugs that cause unnaturally strong contractions(that in itself will increase the risk of placental abruptions) to avoid an abruption.









I also told her that I thought that 37 weeks seemed a little early.

Oh, and the kicker is that she used to work in a NICU.









Anybody got any good info I could pass off to her???? It sounds to me like an sOB is trying to pull the wool over her eyes....so he/she can make their golf game no less I'm sure.








:


----------



## Lisa Lubner (Feb 27, 2004)

wow.

i had a placental abruption and gave birth by emergency c section at 37 weeks. they were never able to find out WHY i had an abruption... i had an uncomplicated, totally normal pregnancy... except for the fact that i was anemic. i would be interested in the study if you can find out more information. some closure would be nice! (i was wondering what was "wrong with me")

i definately think that inducing would be a bad idea... first of all because i'm assuming that the reason they want to induce is to get the baby out before an abruption occurs... but according to that "study" anemic women have a 30% chance of NOT having an abruption. secondly, i agree with you that the induction into a hard and fast labor would be a horrible idea... my labor was really REALLY long, and it wasn't until my mw broke my water at 9cms that we found out i was bleeding A LOT. i definately think that a fast labor would have caused the situation to be much worse, and that my body was doing exactly what it needed to, to minimize the damage to me and my baby.

anyway, the placenta was 50% abrupted by the time they did the surgery... it was a call to 911, a five minute ride to the hospital, and an HOUR in the hospital before they decided that i needed the c sec. the baby was PERFECT the whole time... it was me that they were worried about... my hemoglobin was down to SIX by the time they stopped the bleeding.

i see no reason why she would need to be induced... especially if she is planning on laboring/delivering in a hospital. there are also certain signs of an abruption that you can look for... unusually painful contractions, a hard belly even between contractions, bright red blood instead of a normal bloody show... once the baby is low enough to minimize the risk of a cord prolapse, the water can be broken to check for evidence of hemmorage if necessary...

i should add that i'm days away from giving birth myself, hopefully a vbac.







i was a bit anemic too this time, but it's been closely monitored and i started taking supplements much earlier than last time.


----------



## party_of_seven (May 10, 2004)

Thanks for your reply!

Congrats on your current pregnancy, and I'm wishing you a great labor and delivery. I sure hope that everything works out for you.

I'm sorry to hear that you had such a hard time with your previous labor. I'm glad to hear that everything turned out alright.

I would like to hear about the study too. Even if it is right, I think that this doc is going about it the wrong way. I mean it would make more sense to me if they decided to minimize the risk by scheduling a c-section instead of inducing....pit is nasty stuff that causes very strong contractions-not at all like the normal ebb and flow of a regular labor. Aren't there already studies out there that show that inductions (ie cytotech, pitocin) are more likely to cause uterine rupture in women with previous cesarians?

Why not just ask this mom to come in as soon as her labor starts to be monitored? Why not inform the mom of the warning signs of rupture and have her come in immediately if she is concerned?

Why must they decide to blast the baby out at 37 weeks?????

I tried to be nice. I could tell that the mom was excited about having her baby(sooner rather than later, maybe??). I tried not to sound judgemental...after all, why should _I_ care, right? I told her I would get a second opinion on it....it didn't sound right to me...other moms in the room agreed with me.

Honestly, it was all I could do not to grab her by the shoulders and shake her.


----------



## lorijds (Jun 6, 2002)

Oh my gosh, does she know how many women are anemic during pregnancy? Jeez, if that study were correct (or if she, or her OB is quoting it correctly), then we should have about 20-30 abruptions a year out of our 120 births a year. Fortunately it is more like one or two a year at most.

That is crazy. I can't wait to see this study. Was it published on the Onion or something?

Lori


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

I haven't heard of this study, but I'm thinking that it makes more sense that someone got some info wrong (and unfortunately extrapolated from it). I would have a much easier time believing that 70% of the women that abrupt are anemic - possibly from a conceled partial abruption? than believing that 70% of women who are anemic will abrupt. SOOOOO many women are anemic at term (we do routine hemoglobin checks on admit to L&D, so I know, I'm the one checking!) and very, very few abrupt.

Add to that the fact that if the woman *is* anemic from a small conceled abruption, pitocin induction certainly isn't going to help matters! One of the risks of a pitocin induction (though admittedly rare) is..... placental abruption! Talk about circular reasoning.


----------



## mama de dos (Sep 11, 2003)

Just to add my 2 cents- this seems NUTS! I have to agree w/Mom2six, perhaps someone misunderstood and had read that 70% of women who abrupt happen to be anemic???? (which is a far cry from saying that 70% of women who are anemic abrupt!)

I was severely anemic during my last pg, started taking supplements once the anemia was detected, and had a wonderful, safe and completely complication free homebirth at almost 42 wks.

Please encourage this woman to do her own reading and to leave well enough alone. IF she abrupts, that can be dealt with as necessary, but it seems ludicrous to stack the odds against her, and in favor of complications/intervention/c-sec/early baby, by inducing unnecessarily!

UGH! This kind of thing makes me crazy. I hope all goes well for them.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

I am sorry for your friend.

Anemia is very common during pregnancy. Being anemic is not dangerous itself, but can complicate a delivery in that if there is excessive bleeding, the mother's health is at stake.

Instead of inducing her, why doesn't her doctor give her some ferrous gluconate or ferrous fumerate, and ascorbic acid to enhance its absorption. Floradix is a great iron supplement and usually does not cause constipation.

That may be too simplistic. Not good for profit treatment.

nevermind...


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

My suggestion is to tell her to wait until that study is published. (If there is such a study.)

Maybe her baby will come on its own by then.


----------



## party_of_seven (May 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mom2six*
I would have a much easier time believing that 70% of the women that abrupt are anemic - possibly from a conceled partial abruption? than believing that 70% of women who are anemic will abrupt. SOOOOO many women are anemic at term (we do routine hemoglobin checks on admit to L&D, so I know, I'm the one checking!) and very, very few abrupt.

Add to that the fact that if the woman *is* anemic from a small conceled abruption, pitocin induction certainly isn't going to help matters! One of the risks of a pitocin induction (though admittedly rare) is..... placental abruption! Talk about circular reasoning.

I totally agree! She said that her OB was at a recent conference where he/she got this information, and the study wasn't published yet....she said if it was she would look at it. I think that she got the info wrong....what you are saying makes much more sense.

This just seems like a GIANT red herring. I mean pregnant women aren't walking around abrupting all over the place. Its a rare complication. To induce at 37 weeks because of it seems completely obsurd....I mean if you are going to abrupt, its going to happen. Besides, I can't even imagine how much pitocin it would take to get a baby out at 37 weeks...talk about jumping the gun.









And yes, with my 3rd I was VERY anemic because of surgery I had at 20 weeks to have my gallbladder removed(long story, but completely necessary, and no it couldn't wait). I spent the second half of my pregnancy packing away the iron, and by delivery I was perfectly healthy. I birthed my baby at home with no excessive bleeding...completely complication free.









It absolutely boggles my mind that something like a low iron level would require such a drastic intervention.....I can't wait to hear her birth story($10 says it ends in a c-section or a preterm baby







....but of course she will sing the praises of how her OB saved her baby's life! uke )


----------



## kimberlylibby (Dec 28, 2003)

That's in freaking sane.

I had a venous lake abruption with dd.

I wasn't anemic with her.

This kidlet, I'm quite anemic.

Weird.

Weird weird. Yes, she will get a c/s if they do this. She's NOT READY to have her baby.

HEY DOCTORS, HOW ABOUT YOU GET YOUR $-GRUBBING PAWS OFF OUR UTERUSES (UTERII??)??

Kimberly


----------

