Abstract
Objective: To compare fetal heart rate (FHR) signals acquired simultaneously by an external ultrasound probe and a scalp electrode during the second stage of labor.
Methods: This was a prospective observational study in a labor ward of a tertiary care university hospital. The population was women in labor with uneventful singleton pregnancies at term. Simultaneous external and internal FHR monitoring was performed in 67 consecutively recruited women during the second stage of labor. Cases were subsequently excluded if the trace length was under 40 min, cesarean birth occurred, or the interval between trace-end and birth exceeded 5 min, leaving a total of 33 traces for analysis. The last 40–60 min of these traces were analyzed by a computer system (Omniview-SisPorto® 3.5; Speculum®, Lisbon, Portugal) to quantify cardiotocographic parameters. Paired sample t-test and Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA) were used for statistical analysis, setting significance at 0.05. The main outcome measures were signal loss, FHR baseline, periodic events, and percentage of periodic events coinciding with contractions.
Results: A higher signal loss was observed with external monitoring [10% vs. 4%; P<0.001, LoA=(–6, 18)]. No differences were found in mean FHR baseline [129 bpm vs. 130 bpm, P=0.245, LoA=(–15, 12)], but more accelerations [12 vs. 8, P<0.001, LoA=(–5, 13)] and less decelerations [8 vs. 10, P<0.001, LoA=(–8, 4)] were detected with external monitoring. With this method there were also more accelerations (66% vs. 55%, P=0.036) and less decelerations (68% vs. 81%, P=0.017) coinciding with contractions.
Conclusions: External FHR monitoring during the second stage of labor results in higher signal loss, increased number of accelerations, and decreased number of decelerations when compared with internal monitoring.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the midwives involved in the recruitment and acquisition of the traces and Paulo Sousa, for converting the traces to an analyzable format.
References
[1] Ayres-de-Campos D, Santos C, Bernardes J. Prediction of neonatal state by computer analysis of fetal heart rate tracings: the antepartum arm of the SisPorto® multicentre validation study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;118:52–60.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.04.013Search in Google Scholar
[2] Ayres-de-Campos D, Sousa P, Costa A, Bernardes J. Omniview-SisPorto 3.5-a central fetal monitoring station with online alerts based on computerized cardiotocogram+ST event analysis. J Perinat Med. 2008;36:260–4.10.1515/JPM.2008.030Search in Google Scholar
[3] Bakker PC, Colenbrander GJ, Verstraeten AA, Van Geijn HP. The quality of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;116:22–7.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.01.001Search in Google Scholar
[4] Bernardes J, Ayres-de-Campos D, Costa-Pereira A, Pereira-Leite L, Garrido A. Objective computerized fetal heart rate analysis. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1998;62:141–7.10.1016/S0020-7292(98)00079-4Search in Google Scholar
[5] Dawes GS. Numerical analysis of the human fetal heart rate: the quality of ultrasound records. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984;101:43–52.Search in Google Scholar
[6] Fukushima T, Flores CA, Hon EH, Davidson EC Jr. Limitations of autocorrelation in fetal heart rate monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;153:685–92.10.1016/S0002-9378(85)80261-1Search in Google Scholar
[7] Gonçalves H, Rocha AP, Ayres-de-Campos D, Bernardes J. Internal versus external intrapartum foetal heart rate monitoring: the effect on linear and nonlinear parameters. Physiol Meas. 2006;27:307–19.10.1088/0967-3334/27/3/008Search in Google Scholar
[8] Hewlett-Packard. Hewlett-Packard Series 50 Service Manual, M1351A and 1353A. Böblingen: Germany; 1993.Search in Google Scholar
[9] Lawson GW, Belcher R, Dawes GS, Redman CW. A comparison of ultrasound (with autocorrelation) and direct electrocardiogram fetal heart rate detector systems Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983;147:721–2.10.1016/0002-9378(83)90460-XSearch in Google Scholar
[10] Murray ML. Maternal or fetal heart rate? Avoiding intrapartum misidentification. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2004;33:93–104.10.1177/0884217503261161Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[11] Neoventa Medical AB. Neoventa STAN@ S31 Fetal Heart Monitor-information for prescribers. STAN, GoldtraceTM and the STAN baby logo are trademarks of Neoventa Medical AB. Mölndal: Sweden; © 2001–2005.Search in Google Scholar
[12] Nurani R, Chandraharan E, Lowe V, Ugwumadu A, Arulkumaran S. Misidentification of maternal heart rate as fetal on cadiotocography during the second stage of labor: the role of fetal electrocardiograph. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91: 1428–32.10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01511.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[13] Santo S, Ayres-de-Campos, D. Human factors affecting the interpretation of fetal heart rate tracings: an update. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012;24:84–8.10.1097/GCO.0b013e3283505b3cSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[14] Sherman DJ, Frenkel E, Kurzweil Y, Padua A, Arieli S, Bahar M. Characteristics of maternal heart rate patterns during labor and delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:542–7.Search in Google Scholar
[15] Stewart JH, Andrews J, Cartlidge PH. Numbers of deaths related to intrapartum asphyxia and timing of birth in all Wales perinatal survey, 1993–5. BMJ. 1998;316:657–60.10.1136/bmj.316.7132.657Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[16] Van Veen TR, Belfort MA, Kofford S. Maternal heart rate patterns in the first and second stages of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91:598–604.10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01371.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.
©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston
