Is short-term-variation of fetal-heart-rate a better predictor of fetal acidaemia in labour? A feasibility study.
Acidosis
/ physiopathology
Adult
Cardiotocography
Electrocardiography
Electroencephalography
/ instrumentation
Feasibility Studies
Female
Fetal Blood
Fetal Diseases
/ physiopathology
Fetal Monitoring
/ methods
Fetus
/ physiopathology
Heart Rate, Fetal
/ physiology
Humans
Hydrogen-Ion Concentration
Labor, Obstetric
Pregnancy
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
12
05
2020
accepted:
18
07
2020
entrez:
4
8
2020
pubmed:
4
8
2020
medline:
21
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Continuous intrapartum fetal monitoring is challenging and its clinical benefits are debated. The project evaluated whether short-term-variation (STV) and other computerised fetal heart rate (FHR) parameters (baseline FHR, long-term-variation, accelerations and decelerations) predicted acidaemia at birth. The aims of the study were to assess the changes in FHR pattern during labour and determine the feasibility of undertaking a definitive trial by reporting the practicalities of using the monitoring device, participant recruitment, data collection and staff training. 200 high-risk women carrying a term singleton, non-anomalous fetus, requiring continuous FHR monitoring in labour were consented to participate from the Jessop Wing maternity unit, Sheffield, UK. The trans-abdominal fetal ECG monitor was placed as per clinical protocol. During the monitoring session, clinicians were blinded to the computerised FHR parameters. We analysed the last hour of the FHR and its ability to predict umbilical arterial blood pH <7.20 using receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curves. Of 200 women, 137 cases were excluded as either the monitor did not work from the onset of labour (n = 30), clinical staff did not return or used the monitor on another patient (n = 37), umbilical cord blood not obtained (n = 25), FHR data not recorded within an hour of birth (n = 34) and other reasons (n = 11). In 63 cases included in the final analysis, the computer-derived FHR parameters did not show significant correlation with umbilical artery cord pH <7.20. Labour was associated with a significant increase in short and long term variation of FHR and number of deceleration (P<0.001). However, baseline FHR decreased significantly before delivery (P<0.001). The project encountered a number of challenges, with learning points crucial to informing the design of a large study to evaluate the potential place of intrapartum computerised FHR parameters, using abdominal fetal ECG monitor before its clinical utility and more widespread adoption can be ascertained.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Continuous intrapartum fetal monitoring is challenging and its clinical benefits are debated. The project evaluated whether short-term-variation (STV) and other computerised fetal heart rate (FHR) parameters (baseline FHR, long-term-variation, accelerations and decelerations) predicted acidaemia at birth. The aims of the study were to assess the changes in FHR pattern during labour and determine the feasibility of undertaking a definitive trial by reporting the practicalities of using the monitoring device, participant recruitment, data collection and staff training.
METHODS
200 high-risk women carrying a term singleton, non-anomalous fetus, requiring continuous FHR monitoring in labour were consented to participate from the Jessop Wing maternity unit, Sheffield, UK. The trans-abdominal fetal ECG monitor was placed as per clinical protocol. During the monitoring session, clinicians were blinded to the computerised FHR parameters. We analysed the last hour of the FHR and its ability to predict umbilical arterial blood pH <7.20 using receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curves.
RESULTS
Of 200 women, 137 cases were excluded as either the monitor did not work from the onset of labour (n = 30), clinical staff did not return or used the monitor on another patient (n = 37), umbilical cord blood not obtained (n = 25), FHR data not recorded within an hour of birth (n = 34) and other reasons (n = 11). In 63 cases included in the final analysis, the computer-derived FHR parameters did not show significant correlation with umbilical artery cord pH <7.20. Labour was associated with a significant increase in short and long term variation of FHR and number of deceleration (P<0.001). However, baseline FHR decreased significantly before delivery (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The project encountered a number of challenges, with learning points crucial to informing the design of a large study to evaluate the potential place of intrapartum computerised FHR parameters, using abdominal fetal ECG monitor before its clinical utility and more widespread adoption can be ascertained.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32745099
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236982
pii: PONE-D-20-14044
pmc: PMC7398510
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0236982Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : PB-PG-1215-20010
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 03;2:CD006066
pubmed: 28157275
BJOG. 2012 Jun;119(7):824-31
pubmed: 22571747
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Feb;54(1):79-83
pubmed: 24471849
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019 Sep;98(9):1207-1217
pubmed: 31081113
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jan;129(1):83-90
pubmed: 27926647
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012 Nov;91(11):1306-13
pubmed: 22924738
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;28(14):1664-8
pubmed: 25212975
BJOG. 2012 Jun;119(7):857-65
pubmed: 22530937
Early Hum Dev. 2010 Jun;86(6):339-44
pubmed: 20638984
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Sep;197(3):236.e1-11
pubmed: 17826402
BJOG. 2010 Mar;117(4):429-37
pubmed: 20025619
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Mar 16;16:55
pubmed: 26984160
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016 Mar;42(3):258-65
pubmed: 26787219
Lancet. 2017 Apr 29;389(10080):1719-1729
pubmed: 28341515
J Perinatol. 2017 Mar;37(3):231-235
pubmed: 27831546
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Mar;99(3):413-422
pubmed: 31792930
Int J Obstet Anesth. 2011 Jan;20(1):38-50
pubmed: 21146977
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 May;186(5 Suppl Nature):S69-77
pubmed: 12011873
PLoS One. 2018 Mar 9;13(3):e0193908
pubmed: 29522541
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016 Dec;29(24):4070-7
pubmed: 26902464
BMC Bioinformatics. 2011 Mar 17;12:77
pubmed: 21414208
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 May;186(5 Suppl Nature):S31-68
pubmed: 12011872
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Nov;39(8):1081-1086
pubmed: 31195856
BJOG. 2009 Jan;116(2):334-7; discussion 337-8
pubmed: 19076966
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010 Oct;50(5):456-9
pubmed: 21039380
Radiology. 1982 Apr;143(1):29-36
pubmed: 7063747
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014 Jun;93(6):590-5
pubmed: 24684703
BJOG. 2014 Jun;121(7):889-94
pubmed: 24842087
Hypertens Pregnancy. 2004;23(2):155-69
pubmed: 15369649
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020 Jan;301(1):137-142
pubmed: 31883047
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 May;186(5):1095-103
pubmed: 12015543
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2000 Mar;89(1):27-33
pubmed: 10733020