When a baby is born there are several things that are done by protocol to prevent possible problems such as putting pomadite in the eyes to prevent conjunctivitis by the passage of bacteria from the mother in the birth canal (we will talk about it in a few days) and administer vitamin K by an intramuscular injection.
If you have had a sure child that you saw as the nurse pricked him in a little leg while he explained to you that it was so that he did not suffer a hemorrhage. Well, what your baby was pricked was vitamin K and certainly It is given to prevent vitamin K deficiency bleeding syndrome.. In this post we will explain why it is administered and if it makes sense to do so or if we can save the baby the prick.
What is vitamin K deficiency bleeding syndrome?
It is a rare syndrome, which occurs in very few cases, but which it can be very serious or worse (that the child dies), in which the baby suffers a moderate or severe hemorrhage due to lack of vitamin K. It is a syndrome that can occur in three different ways:
- I start early for the first 24 hours after birth.
- I begin during the first week after birth, usually presenting with oral, umbilical or rectal bleeding.
- Late onset, after the first week and almost exclusively in infants fed with breastfeeding and babies with liver disease or malabsorption. Intracranial hemorrhage occurs in more than 50% of these children.
Does it make sense to administer vitamin K to babies?
Vitamin K can be given to babies orally, although it is necessary to repeat the administration several times, while if it is done by intramuscular injection it is sufficient with a single dose. There are people who wonder to what extent it is necessary to harm the child if the disease occurs only rarely and, although in part it has some logic, we must not forget that bleeding from vitamin K deficiency can be very dangerous for a newborn.
The question about its administration increased when two studies appeared between 1990 and 1992 (although both were directed by the same person) in which it was suggested that vitamin K administered intramuscularly could be associated with an increased risk of development of childhood cancer (but not if administered orally).
Three subsequent studies carried out by different researchers between 1998 and 2003, on the other hand, concluded that there was no relationship between the administration of the vitamin and the frequency of cancer so, in the absence of more studies that talk about it, there is no direct relationship between childhood cancer and intramuscular vitamin K.
Scientific evidence about vitamin K
A systematic review of studies on vitamin K and vitamin K deficiency hemorrhage syndrome (remember that the reviews are very reliable, because they only use serious and well-conducted studies) concluded that when children received intramuscular vitamin K the risk of bleeding was significantly lower.
In light of the data and after having ruled out childhood cancer by administering the logical vitamin K IM, and what the Ministry of Health and Social Policy suggests in its Clinical Practice Guide on Normal Childbirth Care is the following:
Vitamin K prophylaxis of newborns should be offered to prevent the rare, though serious and sometimes fatal vitamin K deficiency bleeding syndrome.
According to this, professionals should offer it and, today, I think parents are not usually asked, but administered directly. Personally, in something like that, it doesn't bother me that they don't ask, although as always, the ideal is to explain what is given to the baby and why.
Is it better intramuscular or can it be given to the baby orally?
In a next post I will talk about the most recommended route of administration, answering a question that Miriam and I asked ourselves before having Guim, because we doubted between letting him get a single intramuscular dose or giving us vitamin K by route oral and avoid the prick.
