OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) alone and with additional ST analysis (EFM + ST) in laboring women with a singleton term pregnancy that is in cephalic presentation in the prevention of metabolic acidosis by the application of individual patient data metaanalysis. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an individual patient data metaanalysis using data from 4 randomized trials, which enabled us to account for missing data and investigate relevant subgroups. The primary outcome was metabolic acidosis, which was defined as an umbilical cord-artery pH <7.05 and a base deficit that had been calculated in the extra cellular fluid compartment >12 mmol/L. We performed 8 explanatory subgroup analyses for 8 different endpoints. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 12,987 women and their newborn infants. Metabolic acidosis was present in 57 women (0.9%) in the EFM + ST group and 73 women (1.1%) in the EFM alone group (relative risk [RR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.53-1.10). Compared with EFM alone, the use of EFM + ST resulted in a reduction in the frequency of instrumental vaginal deliveries (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.99) and fetal blood samples (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.44-0.55). Cesarean delivery rates were comparable between both groups (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.09). Subgroup analyses showed that EFM + ST resulted in fewer admissions to a neonatal intensive care unit for women with a duration of pregnancy of >41 weeks (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.95). CONCLUSION: EFM + ST does not reduce the risk of metabolic acidosis, but it does reduce the need for instrumental vaginal deliveries and fetal blood sampling.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) alone and with additional ST analysis (EFM + ST) in laboring women with a singleton term pregnancy that is in cephalic presentation in the prevention of metabolic acidosis by the application of individual patient data metaanalysis. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an individual patient data metaanalysis using data from 4 randomized trials, which enabled us to account for missing data and investigate relevant subgroups. The primary outcome was metabolic acidosis, which was defined as an umbilical cord-artery pH <7.05 and a base deficit that had been calculated in the extra cellular fluid compartment >12 mmol/L. We performed 8 explanatory subgroup analyses for 8 different endpoints. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 12,987 women and their newborn infants. Metabolic acidosis was present in 57 women (0.9%) in the EFM + ST group and 73 women (1.1%) in the EFM alone group (relative risk [RR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.53-1.10). Compared with EFM alone, the use of EFM + ST resulted in a reduction in the frequency of instrumental vaginal deliveries (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.99) and fetal blood samples (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.44-0.55). Cesarean delivery rates were comparable between both groups (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.09). Subgroup analyses showed that EFM + ST resulted in fewer admissions to a neonatal intensive care unit for women with a duration of pregnancy of >41 weeks (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.95). CONCLUSION: EFM + ST does not reduce the risk of metabolic acidosis, but it does reduce the need for instrumental vaginal deliveries and fetal blood sampling.
Authors: Michael A Belfort; George R Saade; Elizabeth Thom; Sean C Blackwell; Uma M Reddy; John M Thorp; Alan T N Tita; Russell S Miller; Alan M Peaceman; David S McKenna; Edward K S Chien; Dwight J Rouse; Ronald S Gibbs; Yasser Y El-Sayed; Yoram Sorokin; Steve N Caritis; J Peter VanDorsten Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 91.245
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: 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
Authors: Lore Noben; Michelle E M H Westerhuis; Judith O E H van Laar; René D Kok; S Guid Oei; Chris H L Peters; Rik Vullings Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 3.007