• About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Login
    • ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
About Us Contact Us Login ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
Grand Rounds

Which Fetal Heart Monitoring Parameters Best Predict Fetal Acidemia?

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

  • Electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) is commonly used in the US, although data is lacking that there is benefit and may have contributed to increased cesarean section rates
  • Using modern definitions, Cahill et al. (AJOG, 2018) assessed which EFM patterns predict acidemia

METHODS:

  • Prospective cohort study
  • Participants: Women laboring at ≥37 weeks’ gestation with a singleton cephalic fetus
  • EFM patterns during the last 120 minutes prior to delivery were analyzed
  • NICHD category system criteria were used as well as novel patterns
  • Estimated deceleration area: Sum of the areas within the deceleration
    • Each area was estimated as ½ × duration × depth
  • Primary outcome: Fetal acidemia (umbilical artery pH ≤7.10)
  • Secondary outcomes:
    • Neonatal composite morbidity, which included any ≥1 of the following
      • Mechanical ventilation | Seizures | Sepsis | RDS | meconium aspiration | Hypothermia | Death
    • Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were used to assess the test characteristics of individual models for acidemia and neonatal morbidity
    • DeLong method, rather than overlapping confidence intervals were used to compare AUCs
    • Youden index was used to identify the optimal cut points of total deceleration for acidemia or neonatal morbidity to maximizes the sum of sensitivity and specificity

RESULTS:

  • 8,580 women were included in the study
    • 1.7% delivered acidemic infants
    • Composite neonatal morbidity was diagnosed in 8.8% neonates
  • Persistent category I (although rare) was associated with normal pH
    • Mostly category 1 or ever category 1 were more likely to have a normal pH
  • Moderate variability alone (always, mostly, ever) did not independently predict normal pH
  • Any acceleration during 120 minutes whether spontaneous or induced with scalp stimulation was associated with normal pH
    • Adjusted risk ratio of 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01–1.03
  • Ever category III, while rare, was associated with acidemia (there were no all or mostly time periods)
    • Adjusted risk ratio of 8.72, 95% CI, 2.92-26.04
  • Total deceleration area was most discriminative of acidemia
    • AUC 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72-0.80
  • Deceleration area with any 10 minutes of tachycardia was most discriminative for neonatal morbidity
    • AUC 0.77; 95% CI, 0.75-0.79)
  • Threshold of deceleration area
    • Prediction of acidemia: 42,152
    • Prediction of newborn morbidity: 50,761
  • Number of cesareans needed-to-be performed once the above thresholds are reached
    • To potentially prevent 1 case of acidemia and morbidity requires 5 and 6 cesarean sections, respectively

CONCLUSION:

  • Persistent category I was significantly associated with normal pH and any 10 minute period of category III was associated with acidemia
  • Deceleration area is the most predictive electronic fetal monitoring pattern for acidemia; deceleration and tachycardia for neonatal morbidity
  • The authors state

While EFM remains a poor screening test, clinically, these patterns can help identify infants developing acidemia. At identifiable thresholds of deceleration area, the NNT of cesareans to potentially prevent 1 case of acidemia or morbidity was relatively low. These specific features of EFM patterns should be considered in the clinical interpretation and algorithms to improve the performance of EFM

Learn More – Primary Sources:

A prospective cohort study of fetal heart rate monitoring: deceleration area is predictive of fetal acidemia.

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite

< Previous
All Grand Rounds Posts
Next >

Related ObG Topics:

Category II Tracings, Algorithms and Recognition of Metabolic Acidemia
Electronic Fetal Monitoring vs. Intermittent Auscultation

Sections

  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • Grand Rounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media

Are you an
ObG Insider?

Get specially curated clinical summaries delivered to your inbox every week for free

  • Site Map/
  • © ObG Project/
  • Terms and Conditions/
  • Privacy/
  • Contact Us/
© ObG Project
SSL Certificate


  • Already an ObGFirst Member?
    Welcome back

    Log In

    Want to sign up?
    Get guideline notifications
    CME Included

    Sign Up

Get Guideline Alerts Direct to Your Phone
Try ObGFirst Free!

Sign In

Lost your password?

Sign Up for ObGFirst and Stay Ahead

  • - Professional guideline notifications
  • - Daily summary of a clinically relevant
    research paper
  • - Includes 1 hour of CME every month

ObGFirst Free Trial

Already a Member of ObGFirst®?

Please log in to ObGFirst to access the 2T US Atlas

Password Trouble?

Not an ObGFirst® Member Yet?

  • - Access 2T US Atlas
  • - Guideline notifications
  • - Daily research paper summaries
  • - And lots more!
ObGFirst Free Trial

Media - Internet

Computer System Requirements

OBG Project CME requires a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 10+, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge). Certain educational activities may require additional software to view multimedia, presentation, or printable versions of their content. These activities will be marked as such and will provide links to the required software. That software may be: Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Media Player, or Real Networks Real One Player.

Disclosure of Unlabeled Use

This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.

The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.

Disclaimer

Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information
presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications and/or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.

Jointly provided by

NOT ENOUGH CME HOURS

It appears you don't have enough CME Hours to take this Post-Test. Feel free to buy additional CME hours or upgrade your current CME subscription plan

Subscribe

JOIN OBGFIRST AND GET CME/CE CREDITS

One of the benefits of an ObGFirst subscription is the ability to earn CME/CE credits from the ObG entries you read. Tap the button to learn more about ObGFirst

Learn More
Leaving ObG Website

You are now leaving the ObG website and on your way to PRIORITY at UCSF, an independent website. Therefore, we are not responsible for the content or availability of this site