Back to Search
Start Over
Evaluation of an external fetal electrocardiogram monitoring system: a randomized controlled trial.
- Source :
-
American journal of obstetrics and gynecology [Am J Obstet Gynecol] 2020 Aug; Vol. 223 (2), pp. 244.e1-244.e12. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Feb 20. - Publication Year :
- 2020
-
Abstract
- Objective: The objective of the study was to compare interpretability of 2 intrapartum abdominal fetal heart rate-monitoring strategies. We hypothesized that an external fetal electrocardiography monitoring system, a newer technology using wireless abdominal pads, would generate more interpretable fetal heart rate data compared with standard external Doppler fetal heart rate monitoring (standard external monitoring).<br />Study Design: We conducted a randomized controlled trial at 4 Utah hospitals. Patients were enrolled at labor admission and randomized in blocks based on body mass index to fetal electrocardiography or standard external monitoring. Two reviewers, blinded to study allocation, reviewed each fetal heart rate tracing. The primary outcome was the percentage of interpretable minutes of fetal heart rate tracing. An interpretable minute was defined as >25% fetal heart rate data present and no more than 25% continuous missing fetal heart rate data or artifact present. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of interpretable minutes of fetal heart rate tracing obtained while on study device only, the number of device adjustments required intrapartum, clinical outcomes, and patient/provider device satisfaction. We determined that 100 patients per arm (200 total) would be needed to detect a 5% difference in interpretability with 95% power.<br />Results: A total of 218 women were randomized, 108 to fetal electrocardiography and 110 to standard external monitoring. Device setup failure occurred more often in the fetal electrocardiography group (7.5% [8 of 107] vs 0% [0 of 109] for standard external monitoring). There were no differences in the percentage of interpretable tracing between the 2 groups. However, fetal electrocardiography produced more interpretable fetal heart rate tracing in subjects with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m <superscript>2</superscript> . When considering the percentage of interpretable minutes of fetal heart rate tracing while on study device only, fetal electrocardiography outperformed standard external monitoring for all subjects, regardless of maternal body mass index. Maternal demographics and clinical outcomes were similar between arms. In the fetal electrocardiography group, more device changes occurred compared with standard external monitoring (51% vs 39%), but there were fewer nursing device adjustments (2.9 vs 6.2 mean adjustments intrapartum, P < .01). There were no differences in physician device satisfaction scores between groups, but fetal electrocardiography generated higher patient satisfaction scores.<br />Conclusion: Fetal electrocardiography performed similarly to standard external monitoring when considering percentage of interpretable tracing generated in labor. Furthermore, patients reported overall greater satisfaction with fetal electrocardiography in labor. Fetal electrocardiography may be particularly useful in patients with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m <superscript>2</superscript> .<br /> (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Subjects :
- Adult
Analgesia, Epidural
Apgar Score
Blood Gas Analysis
Body Mass Index
Cardiotocography methods
Cesarean Section
Electrocardiography methods
Female
Fetal Blood
Humans
Infant, Newborn
Labor, Induced
Male
Pregnancy
Time Factors
Young Adult
Attitude of Health Personnel
Cardiotocography instrumentation
Electrocardiography instrumentation
Fetal Distress diagnosis
Labor, Obstetric
Obesity, Maternal
Patient Satisfaction
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 1097-6868
- Volume :
- 223
- Issue :
- 2
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- American journal of obstetrics and gynecology
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 32087146
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.02.012