Literature DB >> 7800313

Intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring versus intermittent auscultation: a meta-analysis.

A M Vintzileos1, D J Nochimson, E R Guzman, R A Knuppel, M Lake, B S Schifrin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To use a meta-analysis of all published randomized trials to determine whether the use of continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring (EFM) as the main method of intrapartum fetal surveillance is associated with improved pregnancy outcome compared to intermittent auscultation. DATA SOURCES: We used the MEDLINE data base and reference lists of articles to identify all published randomized trials of EFM versus intermittent auscultation. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: A total of nine randomized trials published in peer-review journals were identified. The selection criterion was the use of EFM or intermittent auscultation as the main intrapartum fetal surveillance technique. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A total of 18,561 patients were included in the nine published randomized trials, 9398 in the EFM group and 9163 in the auscultation group. Measures of pregnancy outcome included cesarean delivery, cesarean for suspected fetal distress, overall use of forceps or vacuum, use of forceps or vacuum for suspected fetal distress, overall perinatal mortality, and perinatal mortality due to fetal hypoxia (intrapartum or early neonatal death) attributable to the method of intrapartum monitoring. The meta-analysis showed that the patients monitored electronically had a significantly higher overall cesarean rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-2.01), higher cesarean rate for fetal distress (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.81-3.53), overall increased use of forceps or vacuum (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02-1.49), increased use of forceps or vacuum for suspected fetal distress (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.97-3.18), and decreased perinatal mortality due to fetal hypoxia (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17-0.98).
CONCLUSION: Electronic fetal monitoring is associated with increased rates of surgical intervention and decreased perinatal mortality due to fetal hypoxia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7800313     DOI: 10.1016/0029-7844(94)00320-d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  17 in total

1.  Assessment of mother and fetus in labour. Article is not evidence based.

Authors:  O Olsen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-08-07

2.  Clinically accurate fetal ECG parameters acquired from maternal abdominal sensors.

Authors:  Gari Clifford; Reza Sameni; Jay Ward; Julian Robinson; Adam J Wolfberg
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-03-05       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  A comparison of subjective and mathematical estimations of fetal heart rate variability.

Authors:  Adam J Wolfberg; David J Derosier; Trevor Roberts; Zeeshan Syed; Gari D Clifford; David Acker; Adre Du Plessis
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2008-02

4.  "You're not my obstetrician" (and it may not matter).

Authors:  Chaim M Bell; Joel G Ray
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2007-08-14       Impact factor: 8.262

5. 

Authors:  F Béguin
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 2.344

6.  A Review of Fetal ECG Signal Processing; Issues and Promising Directions.

Authors:  Reza Sameni; Gari D Clifford
Journal:  Open Pacing Electrophysiol Ther J       Date:  2010-01-01

7.  S1-Guideline on the Use of CTG During Pregnancy and Labor: Long version - AWMF Registry No. 015/036.

Authors: 
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.915

Review 8.  [S3 guidelines on "full-term vaginal birth" from an anesthesiological perspective : Worthwhile knowledge for anesthesiologists].

Authors:  P Helmer; T Skazel; M Wenk; C von Kaisenberg; M Abou-Dakn; M Papsdorf; F Abu Hmeidan; S Kehl; P Meybohm; Peter Kranke
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2021-09-06       Impact factor: 1.041

9.  [Anesthesia in obstetrics: Tried and trusted methods, current standards and new challenges].

Authors:  P Kranke; T Annecke; D H Bremerich; R Hanß; L Kaufner; C Klapp; H Ohnesorge; U Schwemmer; T Standl; S Weber; T Volk
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 1.041

10.  What is the "normal" fetal heart rate?

Authors:  Stephanie Pildner von Steinburg; Anne-Laure Boulesteix; Christian Lederer; Stefani Grunow; Sven Schiermeier; Wolfgang Hatzmann; Karl-Theodor M Schneider; Martin Daumer
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 2.984

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.