Simon Foged Victor1, Diana Bøttcher Brøndum Bach2, Anna Carolina Hvelplund3, Carsten Nickelsen2, Jens Lyndrup4, Charlotte Wilken-Jensen4, Lise Jul Scharff4, Tom Weber2, Niels Jørgen Secher2, Lone Krebs2,5. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zealand University Hospital, Holbæk, Denmark. simonvictor@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager and Hvidovre Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager and Hvidovre Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark. 5. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim was to investigate if intrapartum monitoring with cardiotocography (CTG) in combination with ST analysis (STAN) results in an improved perinatal outcome. METHODS: We performed a two-center randomized trial. 1013 women with term fetuses in cephalic presentation entered the trial. If a CTG showed intermediate or pathological abnormalities, they were offered fetal blood sampling (FBS) and inclusion if the pH value was above 7.25. They were randomized to either CTG + FBS or CTG + STAN. The primary outcome was neonatal metabolic acidosis, defined as umbilical cord arterial blood pH below 7.05, and base excess equal to or below -10. The secondary outcomes included operative vaginal delivery for fetal distress. RESULTS: The rate of metabolic acidosis was 0.8% in the CTG + FBS group and 1.5% in women in the CTG + STAN (P = 0.338). More women in the CTG + STAN group delivered by operative vaginal delivery (25.6% vs 33.5%, P = 0.006). Significantly fewer women in the CTG + STAN group had three to five (28.8% vs 11.0%, P = < 0.001) and six to ten fetal blood samples taken (3.4% vs 0.4%, P = < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CTG + STAN did not reduce the incidence of neonatal metabolic acidosis compared to CTG + FBS. CTG + STAN was, however, associated with an increased risk of operative vaginal delivery and a reduced use of FBS. If STAN is used for fetal surveillance, we recommend that it is combined with other methods, such as FBS, for confirmation of the need for operative delivery. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ID: NCT01699646. Date of registration: October 4, 2012 (retrospectively registered). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01699646?id=NCT01699646&draw=2&rank=1.
PURPOSE: The aim was to investigate if intrapartum monitoring with cardiotocography (CTG) in combination with ST analysis (STAN) results in an improved perinatal outcome. METHODS: We performed a two-center randomized trial. 1013 women with term fetuses in cephalic presentation entered the trial. If a CTG showed intermediate or pathological abnormalities, they were offered fetal blood sampling (FBS) and inclusion if the pH value was above 7.25. They were randomized to either CTG + FBS or CTG + STAN. The primary outcome was neonatal metabolic acidosis, defined as umbilical cord arterial blood pH below 7.05, and base excess equal to or below -10. The secondary outcomes included operative vaginal delivery for fetal distress. RESULTS: The rate of metabolic acidosis was 0.8% in the CTG + FBS group and 1.5% in women in the CTG + STAN (P = 0.338). More women in the CTG + STAN group delivered by operative vaginal delivery (25.6% vs 33.5%, P = 0.006). Significantly fewer women in the CTG + STAN group had three to five (28.8% vs 11.0%, P = < 0.001) and six to ten fetal blood samples taken (3.4% vs 0.4%, P = < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CTG + STAN did not reduce the incidence of neonatal metabolic acidosis compared to CTG + FBS. CTG + STAN was, however, associated with an increased risk of operative vaginal delivery and a reduced use of FBS. If STAN is used for fetal surveillance, we recommend that it is combined with other methods, such as FBS, for confirmation of the need for operative delivery. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ID: NCT01699646. Date of registration: October 4, 2012 (retrospectively registered). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01699646?id=NCT01699646&draw=2&rank=1.
Authors: I Amer-Wåhlin; C Hellsten; H Norén; H Hagberg; A Herbst; I Kjellmer; H Lilja; C Lindoff; M Månsson; L Mårtensson; P Olofsson; A Sundström; K Marsál Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-08-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Joshua P Vogel; Alfred O Osoti; Anthony J Kelly; Stefania Livio; Jane E Norman; Zarko Alfirevic Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-09-13