Comparison of oxidative stress markers in umbilical cord blood after vaginal and cesarean delivery

  • Noh E
  • Kim Y
  • Cho M
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
30Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of our study was to investigate the effect of the mode of delivery on the oxidant and antioxidant system in umbilical cord blood. Methods: We performed gas analysis of umbilical venous blood and umbilical arterial blood immediately after delivery in 38 women; eighteen women had a vaginal delivery while 20 women delivered via cesarean section at over 37 weeks gestation. We examined lipid peroxide concentration by thiobarbituric acid reaction, protein carbonyl content by 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine reaction, and total antioxidant capacity by oxygen radical absorbance capacity assay. Results: Lipid peroxide levels in umbilical venous blood were significantly higher in patients delivering by planned cesarean section (1.81 ± 0.06 nmol/mg protein) than those with vaginal delivery (1.24 ± 0.05 nmol/mg protein) (P < 0.05). Antioxidant capacity in umbilical venous blood was significantly higher in patients delivering by planned cesarean section (119.70 ± 0.13 µM/µL) than those with a vaginal delivery (118.70 ± 0.29 µM/µL) (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the carbonyl content of umbilical venous blood or in the lipid peroxide, carbonyl content, and total antioxidant capacity of umbilical arterial blood. Conclusion: Lipid peroxidation levels and antioxidant capacity in umbilical venous blood were higher in patients delivering by planned cesarean section than those with a vaginal delivery. Therefore, we propose that both the mother and neonate are exposed to higher oxidative stress during cesarean section delivery.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Noh, E. J., Kim, Y. H., Cho, M. K., Kim, J. W., Kim, J. W., Byun, Y. J., & Song, T.-B. (2014). Comparison of oxidative stress markers in umbilical cord blood after vaginal and cesarean delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology Science, 57(2), 109. https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.2014.57.2.109

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free