Hi,
Just wondering if anyone could shed some light on this situation. My baby was born 3 weeks ago through a planned caesarean. The birth went well and she had an apgar score of 9 and then 10 at five minutes. She was born at 8 am. At 11 am she was given a syringe of formula as I was unable to produce any colostrum. I was quite 'under the weather' with strong painkillers at this time. Well, by 10 pm that night she had not eaten again and the nurses tested her blood sugar level and it had dropped from 2.9 at 6pm to 2.0 at 10 pm. She had gone 11 hours without eating. I had been attempting to breastfeed throughout this time to no avail.
I am just wondering if anyone has any information on low blood sugar levels in newborns and what is considered to be a dangerous level. She was given a feeding tube almost immediately after this and this stayed in for another 12 hours or so afterwards. She began feeding on the bottle the following day.
No one at the hospital seemed to be concerned but looking back on this it is concerning to me.
Thanks in advance for your ideas.
Emma
DD have extremely low BLS after birth 0.9, which is hypoglycemia, she was nearly 7 weeks early and it is common for babies under 2.5kg or prem to have low BLS. Her apgars were also very good.
When I saw her about 2 hours after birth she didn't have a feeding tube in, but she did have one in when I saw her the next morning.
She was given formula, only a few ml, but I am not sure of the times etc, I have actually just made contact with FOI to get a copy of her medical records, so I can see a full summary.
There is no lowest level of blood sugar that is universally accepted as meaning the baby has low blood sugar. Because of this atmosphere of hyper-concern about low blood sugar, the level of sugar keeps being raised to absurd levels. In many hospitals now, 3.4 mmol/L (60 mg %) is now considered the lowest acceptable blood sugar. This is patently aberrant and there is no evidence to back up such a level as the lowest acceptable blood sugar concentration.
Sorry it isnt doesn't see so straight forward but a level of 2.0 is pretty low. I had some interesting reading that colustrum is a lot better are reguling BLS than formula!
I know that some others have said no to giving any formula and bub has been given something via an IV to treat the hypoglycemia instead.
Hi Stella’sMum
Most hospitals would consider anything below about 2.5 to be low, however this number has no meaning in real life. It was derived at from a very small and poorly organised trial quite a number of years ago. In fact most experts cannot agree what is low. Suggestions range from 1.5 to 3.6. There is some research that suggests that it is normal and beneficial for a newborn to have ‘low blood sugar’ at birth. A low blood sugar encourages the baby to look for a feed and want to feed often which will cause your body to increase your milk supply. Even if your baby is just licking at your nipples this will still encourage you to make milk. There is no way I would have considered giving your baby formula 2 hours after birth with a blood sugar of 2.0 if you had not decided that you wanted to formula feed. During your pregnancy tour baby has been storing ‘brown fat’ this brown fat is used by your baby after birth as a food source. All this is of course based on the fact that there was no other clinical signs of low blood sugar.
Hi,
Thanks for your responses. Alan, in regard to clinical signs, she was sleepy/lethargic but I suppose all newborns are like this? Also, her temperature was taken and it was 36 degrees whan her Bsl was at its lowest. Other than this, no other signs that I can recall. Should I be concerned about any long term damage? Thanks again,
Emma
Hi Stella’sMum
There is no need to be concerned your baby will not have suffered any long term damage. A temp of 36 is fine being sleepy can be a sign of low blood sugar but on its own it is not significant and as you say some babies are sleepy after birth.
Low blood Sugar Newborn
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks