AIM: To evaluate whether computerized CTG (cCTG) is a reliable method of predicting neonatal outcome in pregnancies complicated by pregestational diabetes at term. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We considered 27 pregnant women affected by pregestational diabetes and 46 normal pregnancies as controls that fulfilled the following criteria: singleton, Caucasian, euglycemic pregnancies at term (>37 weeks gestational age). All women delivered by cesarean section (CS), with an antepartum cCTG performed within one hour before the CS and an UBGA available at birth. No patient was in labor during FHR monitoring. RESULTS: Among cCTG parameters, accelerations 15 bpm, HV min, HV ms and STV were significantly lower in comparison to controls. We observed that in the diabetic pregnant women the parameter STV was not able to predict or to linearly regress with the most important UBGA parameters: pH and pCO2. Contrarily, in normal pregnancies, the STV linearly regressed with both the pH (p < 0.03) and pCO2 (p<0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Computerized FHR criteria may not be applicable to fetuses in pregestational diabetic pregnancies at term. Therefore some criteria should perhaps be modified for a correct interpretation of cCTG in these pregnancies.
AIM: To evaluate whether computerized CTG (cCTG) is a reliable method of predicting neonatal outcome in pregnancies complicated by pregestational diabetes at term. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We considered 27 pregnant women affected by pregestational diabetes and 46 normal pregnancies as controls that fulfilled the following criteria: singleton, Caucasian, euglycemic pregnancies at term (>37 weeks gestational age). All women delivered by cesarean section (CS), with an antepartum cCTG performed within one hour before the CS and an UBGA available at birth. No patient was in labor during FHR monitoring. RESULTS: Among cCTG parameters, accelerations 15 bpm, HV min, HV ms and STV were significantly lower in comparison to controls. We observed that in the diabetic pregnant women the parameter STV was not able to predict or to linearly regress with the most important UBGA parameters: pH and pCO2. Contrarily, in normal pregnancies, the STV linearly regressed with both the pH (p < 0.03) and pCO2 (p<0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Computerized FHR criteria may not be applicable to fetuses in pregestational diabetic pregnancies at term. Therefore some criteria should perhaps be modified for a correct interpretation of cCTG in these pregnancies.