Literature DB >> 30832536

The Fetal Reserve Index Significantly Outperforms ACOG Category System in Predicting Cord Blood Base Excess and pH: A Methodological Failure of the Category System.

Mark I Evans1,2,3, David W Britt4, Robert D Eden4, Paula Gallagher4, Shara M Evans4,5, Barry S Schifrin4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) has been used extensively for almost 50 years but performs poorly in predicting and preventing adverse neonatal outcome. In recent years, the current "enhanced" classification of patterns (category I-III system [CAT]) were introduced into routine practice without corroborative studies, which has resulted in even EFM experts lamenting its value. Since abnormalities of arterial cord blood parameters correlate reasonably well with risk of fetal injury, here we compare the statistical performance of EFM using the current CAT system with the Fetal Reserve Index (FRI) for predicting derangements in base excess (BE), pH, and pO2 in arterial cord blood.
METHODS: We utilized a research database of labor data, including umbilical cord blood measurements to assess patients by both worst CAT and last FRI classifications. We compared these approaches for their ability to predict BE, pH, and pO2 in cord blood.
RESULTS: The FRI showed a clear correlation with cord blood BE and pH with BE being more highly correlated than pH. The CAT was much less predictive than FRI (P < .05). The CAT II cases had FRI scores across the spectrum of severity of FRI designations and as such provide little clinical discrimination. The PO2 was not discriminatory, in part, because of neonatal interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: The Fetal Reserve Index (FRI) provides superior performance over CAT classification of FHR patterns in predicting the BE and pH in umbilical cord blood. Furthermore, the CAT system fails to satisfy multiple fundamental principles required for successful screening programs. Limitations of CAT are further compounded by assumptions about physiology that are not consistent with clinical observations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ACOG category system; Fetal Reserve Index; base excess; electronic fetal monitoring; pH; statistical performance metrics

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30832536     DOI: 10.1177/1933719119833796

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Reprod Sci        ISSN: 1933-7191            Impact factor:   3.060


  13 in total

1.  Classification of normal and hypoxic fetuses from systems modeling of intrapartum cardiotocography.

Authors:  Philip A Warrick; Emily F Hamilton; Doina Precup; Robert E Kearney
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.538

2.  Electronic fetal monitoring as a public health screening program: the arithmetic of failure.

Authors:  David A Grimes; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  Strong Inference: Certain systematic methods of scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than others.

Authors:  J R Platt
Journal:  Science       Date:  1964-10-16       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Graded classification of fetal heart rate tracings: association with neonatal metabolic acidosis and neurologic morbidity.

Authors:  Barry S Schifrin
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-12-29       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Electronic fetal monitoring: a bridge too far.

Authors:  Thomas P Sartwelle
Journal:  J Leg Med       Date:  2012-07

6.  Fetal monitoring for the practicing physician.

Authors:  E H Hon
Journal:  Calif Med       Date:  1970-12

7.  Reengineering Electronic Fetal Monitoring Interpretation: Using the Fetal Reserve Index to Anticipate the Need for Emergent Operative Delivery.

Authors:  Robert D Eden; Mark I Evans; Shara M Evans; Barry S Schifrin
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2017-11-14       Impact factor: 3.060

8.  The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines.

Authors:  George A Macones; Gary D V Hankins; Catherine Y Spong; John Hauth; Thomas Moore
Journal:  J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct

9.  Discussion: 'Topiramate in pregnancy and risk of oral clefts,' by Margulis et al.

Authors:  George A Macones; Alison Cahill; David M Stamilio; Anthony Odibo
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-09-07       Impact factor: 8.661

10.  An evaluation of fetal heart rate characteristics associated with neonatal encephalopathy: a case-control study.

Authors:  H A Frey; X Liu; C D Lynch; W Musindi; P Samuels; K M Rood; S F Thung; J M Bakk; W Cheng; M B Landon
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2018-04-15       Impact factor: 6.531

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Resistance to Change.

Authors:  Mark I Evans; David W Britt
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 2.924

2.  Comparison of the predictive ability for perinatal acidemia in neonates between the NICHD 3-tier FHR system combined with clinical risk factors and the fetal reserve index.

Authors:  Ninlapa Pruksanusak; Natthicha Chainarong; Siriwan Boripan; Alan Geater
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-10-20       Impact factor: 3.752

Review 3.  Changing Perspectives of Electronic Fetal Monitoring.

Authors:  Mark I Evans; David W Britt; Shara M Evans; Lawrence D Devoe
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2021-10-18       Impact factor: 2.924

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.