OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the added value of the baseline T/QRS ratio to other known risk factors in predicting adverse outcome and interventions for suspected fetal distress. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Three academic and six non-academic teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Laboring women with a high-risk cephalic singleton pregnancy beyond 36 weeks of gestation. METHODS: We obtained STAN(®) recordings (ST-analysis, Neoventa, Sweden) from two previous studies. Three patient groups were defined: cases with adverse outcome, cases with emergency delivery because of suspected fetal distress without adverse outcome, and a reference group of uncomplicated cases. Baseline T/QRS ratios among the adverse outcome and intervention for suspected fetal distress cases were compared to those of the uncomplicated cases. The ability of baseline T/QRS to predict adverse outcome and suspected fetal distress was determined using a multivariable logistic model. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The added value of the baseline T/QRS to other known risk factors in the prediction of adverse outcome and interventions for suspected fetal distress. RESULTS: From 3462 recordings, 2459 were available for analysis. Median baseline T/QRS for uncomplicated cases, adverse outcome and interventions for suspected fetal distress were 0.12 (range 0.00-0.52), 0.12 (0.00-0.42) and 0.13 (0.00-0.39), respectively. There was no statistical difference between these groups. Multivariable analysis showed no added value of baseline T/QRS in the prediction of either adverse outcome or interventions for suspected fetal distress. CONCLUSION: Baseline T/QRS has no added value in the prediction of adverse neonatal outcome or interventions for suspected fetal distress.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the added value of the baseline T/QRS ratio to other known risk factors in predicting adverse outcome and interventions for suspected fetal distress. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Three academic and six non-academic teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Laboring women with a high-risk cephalic singleton pregnancy beyond 36 weeks of gestation. METHODS: We obtained STAN(®) recordings (ST-analysis, Neoventa, Sweden) from two previous studies. Three patient groups were defined: cases with adverse outcome, cases with emergency delivery because of suspected fetal distress without adverse outcome, and a reference group of uncomplicated cases. Baseline T/QRS ratios among the adverse outcome and intervention for suspected fetal distress cases were compared to those of the uncomplicated cases. The ability of baseline T/QRS to predict adverse outcome and suspected fetal distress was determined using a multivariable logistic model. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The added value of the baseline T/QRS to other known risk factors in the prediction of adverse outcome and interventions for suspected fetal distress. RESULTS: From 3462 recordings, 2459 were available for analysis. Median baseline T/QRS for uncomplicated cases, adverse outcome and interventions for suspected fetal distress were 0.12 (range 0.00-0.52), 0.12 (0.00-0.42) and 0.13 (0.00-0.39), respectively. There was no statistical difference between these groups. Multivariable analysis showed no added value of baseline T/QRS in the prediction of either adverse outcome or interventions for suspected fetal distress. CONCLUSION: Baseline T/QRS has no added value in the prediction of adverse neonatal outcome or interventions for suspected fetal distress.
Authors: Rik Vullings; Kim M J Verdurmen; Alexandra D J Hulsenboom; Stephanie Scheffer; Hinke de Lau; Anneke Kwee; Pieter F F Wijn; Isis Amer-Wåhlin; Judith O E H van Laar; S Guid Oei Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-04-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Peter Andriessen; Alex Zwanenburg; Judith O E H van Laar; Rik Vullings; Ben J M Hermans; Hendrik J Niemarkt; Reint K Jellema; Daan R M G Ophelders; Tim G A M Wolfs; Boris W Kramer; Tammo Delhaas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alexandra D J Hulsenboom; Kim M J Verdurmen; Rik Vullings; M Beatrijs van der Hout-van der Jagt; Anneke Kwee; Judith O E H van Laar; S Guid Oei Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 3.240