Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Signal quality of non-invasive fetal electrocardiogram in vaginal breech delivery: a case–controlled study

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Recently, a non-invasive fetal electrocardiogram monitor has been approved for clinical usage in labour and delivery. To determine the fetal signal quality of vaginal breech deliveries in comparison with a case–controlled cephalic group during labour.

Study design

This case–control study was carried out at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the University Hospital Frankfurt between 1st July 2012 and 30th September 2012. A total of seven breech deliveries were evaluated. A case–controlled cephalic group with same gestational age and parity were selected from a previous trial.

Results

During first stage of labour, vaginal breech and cephalic delivery had no significant different fetal signal success rates (mean 87.8 vs. 85.7 %; p > 0.05). There was a trend of higher fetal signal success rates in the vaginal breech delivery group during second stage of labour (78.4 vs. 55.4 %; p = 0.08).

Conclusion

Similar fetal signal success rates in vaginal breech delivery in comparison to cephalic presentation were demonstrated using the new commercially available non-invasive abdominal fECG device (the Monica AN24TM).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bracht E (1936) Zur manualhilfe bei Beckenendlage. Ztschr Geburtsh Gynäk 112:271

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bracht E (1938) Zur Behandlung der Steisslage. Zentralbl Gynäk 62:1735

    Google Scholar 

  3. Plentl AA, Stone RE (1953) The bracht maneuver. Obstet Gynecol Surv 8:313–325

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA et al (2000) Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 356:1375–1383

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Glezerman M (2006) Five years to the term breech trial: the rise and fall of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:20–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S et al (2004) Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned cesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomized term breech trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 19:864–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kotaska A, Menticoglou S, Gangnon R et al (2009) Vaginal delivery of breech presentation. SOGC clinical practicse guideline. JOGC 226:557–566

    Google Scholar 

  8. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. Leitlinie: Geburt bei Beckenendlage. DGGG Stand Januar 2010. http://www.dggg.de/leitlinien/aktuelle-leitlinien/3-praenatal-und-geburtsmedizin/

  9. ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice (2006) ACOG Committee Opinion No. 340. Mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol 108:235–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Louwen F, Leuchter LM, Reitter A (2012) Bekcenendlagengeburt––mehr als Sectio vs Spontangeburt. Z Geburtsh Neonatol 216:191–194

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hofmeyr GJ, Impey LWM. RCOG guideline No. 20b. The management of breech presentation. 2006. http://www.rcog.org.uk/print/womens-health/clinical-guidance/management-breech-presentation-green-top-20b

  12. Reinhard J, Louwen F (2012) Non-invasive foetal ECG––a comparable alternative to the doppler CTG? Geburtsh Frauenheilk 72:211–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Reinhard J, Hatzmann H, Schiermeier S (2008) Fetales elektrokardiogramm (EKG) als alternative der doppler-kardiotokografie (CTG) zur antepartualen Überwachung des Feten––erste Ergebnisse. Z Geburtsh Neonatol 212:226–229

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Reinhard J, Hayes-Gill BR, Yi Q, Hatzmann H, Schiermeier S (2009) Signalqualität der nicht-invasiven fetalen Echokardiographie (EKG) unter der Geburt. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 69:703–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Reinhard J, Hayes-Gill BR, Yi Q, Hatzmann H, Schiermeier S (2010) The equivalence of non-invasive foetal electrocardiogram (fECG) to doppler cardiotocogram (CTG) ultrasound during the 1st stage of labour. J Perinat Med 38:179–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Reinhard J, Hayes-Gill BR, Schiermeier S, Löser H, Niedballa LM, Haarmann E, Sonnwald A, Hatzmann W, Heinrich TM, Louwen F (2011) Uterine activity monitoring during labour––a multi-centre, blinded two-way trial of external tocodynamometry against electrohysterography. Z Geburtsh Neonatol 215:199–204

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Reinhard J, Hayes-Gill BR, Schiermeier S, Hatzmann W, Heinrich TM, Louwen F (2013) Intrapartum fetal and maternal heart rate ambiguity––a comparison of doppler ultrasound CTG and the abdominal fetal electrocardiogram with maternal electrocardiogram. Gynecol Obstet Invest 75:101–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sänger N, Hayes-Gill B, Schiermeier S, Hatzmann W, Yuan J, Herrmann E, Louwen F, Reinhard J (2012) Antepartales fetales nicht-invasives EKG statt CTG––Eine bessere Alternative zum CTG? Geburtsh Frauenheilk 72:630–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Reinhard J, Hayes-Gill BR, Schiermeier S, Hatzmann W, Herrmann E, Heinrich TM, Louwen F (2012) Intrapartum signal quality with external fetal heart rate monitoring––a two way trial of external doppler CTG ultrasound and the abdominal fetal electrocardiogramm. Arch Gynecol Obstet 286:1103–1107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rooth G, Huch A, Huch R (1987) Guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring. Int J Gynecol Obstet 25:159–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Deutsche Gesellschaft für perinatale Medizin, AG für materno-fetale Medizin, deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. Anwendung des CTG während Schwangerschaft und Geburt. Frauenarzt 2004; 45:979–989

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rooth G, Huch A, Huch R (1987) FIGO news: guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 25:159–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Solum T (1980) A comparison of three methods for external fetal cardiography. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scan 59:123–126

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bakker PCAM, Colenbrander GJ, Verstraeten AA, Van Geijn HP (2004) The quality of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 116:22–27

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Amer-Wahlin I, Hellsten C (2001) Nore’n H et al cardiotocography only versus cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram for intrapartum fetal monitoring: a swedish randomised controlled trial. Lancet 358:534–538

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Fraser WD, Turcot L, Krauss I, Brisson-Carrol G (2007) With-drawn: amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18: CD000015

Download references

Conflict of interest

Monica health care Ltd. has sponsored various other studies at a total amount of around 65.000€.

Ethical approval

Ethics approval was granted by the local university of Frankfurt ethics committee.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Nicole Sänger, Frank Louwen & Juping Yuan

  2. St. Marienkrankenhaus, Richard-Wagner-Str. 14, 60318, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Joscha Reinhard

  3. Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany

    Lars Hanker

Authors
  1. Nicole Sänger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frank Louwen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joscha Reinhard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Juping Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lars Hanker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joscha Reinhard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sänger, N., Louwen, F., Reinhard, J. et al. Signal quality of non-invasive fetal electrocardiogram in vaginal breech delivery: a case–controlled study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 288, 1017–1020 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2860-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2860-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation