Intrapartum non-invasive electrophysiological monitoring: A prospective observational study

被引:16
作者
Lempersz, Carlijn [1 ,2 ]
Noben, Lore [1 ,2 ]
van Osta, Gonnie [3 ]
Wassen, Martine L. H. [4 ]
Meershoek, Bert P. J. [5 ]
Bakker, Petra [6 ]
Jacquemyn, Yves [7 ]
Cuerva, Marcos Javier [8 ]
Vullings, Rik [2 ,9 ]
Westerhuis, Michelle E. M. H. [1 ,2 ]
Oei, S. Guid [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Maxima Med Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Veldhoven, Netherlands
[2] Eindhoven MedTech Innovat Ctr E MTIC, Eindhoven, Netherlands
[3] BV Data Anal & Reporting, Hilversum, Netherlands
[4] Zuyderland Med Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Heerlen, Netherlands
[5] Van Weel Bethesda Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Dirksland, Netherlands
[6] Univ Amsterdam, Med Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[7] Univ Hosp Antwerp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Antwerp, Belgium
[8] Univ Hosp La Paz, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Madrid, Spain
[9] Eindhoven Univ Technol, Dept Elect Engn, Eindhoven, Netherlands
基金
欧盟地平线“2020”;
关键词
fetal monitoring; fetus; heart rate monitoring; labor; non-invasive fetal electrocardiography; BODY-MASS INDEX; FETAL ELECTROCARDIOGRAM; ACCURACY; ELECTROHYSTEROGRAPHY; CARDIOTOCOGRAPHY; COMPLICATIONS; RELIABILITY; AGREEMENT; OUTCOMES; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1111/aogs.13873
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Introduction Doppler ultrasound cardiotocography is a non-invasive alternative that, despite its poor specificity, is often first choice for intrapartum monitoring. Doppler ultrasound suffers from signal loss due to fetal movements and is negatively correlated with maternal body mass index (BMI). Reported accuracy of fetal heart rate monitoring by Doppler ultrasound varies between 10.6 and 14.3 bpm and reliability between 62.4% and 73%. The fetal scalp electrode (FSE) is considered the reference standard for fetal monitoring but can only be applied after membranes have ruptured with sufficient cervical dilatation and is sometimes contra-indicated. A non-invasive alternative that overcomes the shortcomings of Doppler ultrasound, providing reliable information on fetal heart rate, could be the answer. Non-invasive fetal electrocardiography (NI-fECG) uses a wireless electrode patch on the maternal abdomen to obtain both fetal and maternal heart rate signals as well as an electrohysterogram. We aimed to validate a wireless NI-fECG device for intrapartum monitoring in term singleton pregnancies, by comparison with the FSE. Material and methods We performed a multicenter cross-sectional observational study at labor wards of 6 hospitals located in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain. Laboring women with a healthy singleton fetus in cephalic presentation and gestational age between 36 and 42 weeks were included. Participants received an abdominal electrode patch and FSE after written informed consent. Accuracy, reliability, and success rate of fetal heart rate readings were determined, using FSE as reference standard. Analysis was performed for the total population and measurement period as well as separated by labor stage and BMI class (<= 30 and >30 kg/m(2)). Results We included a total of 125 women. Simultaneous registrations with NI-fECG and FSE were available in 103 women. Overall accuracy is -1.46 bpm and overall reliability 86.84%. Overall success rate of the NI-fECG is around 90% for the total population as well as for both BMI subgroups. Success rate dropped to 63% during second stage of labor, similar results are found when looking at the separate BMI groups. Conclusions Performance measures of the NI-fECG device are good in the overall group and the separate BMI groups. Compared with Doppler ultrasound performance measures from the literature, NI-fECG is a more accurate alternative. Especially, when women have a higher BMI, NI-fECG performs well, resembling FSE performance measures.
引用
收藏
页码:1387 / 1395
页数:9
相关论文
共 29 条
  • [1] A Randomized Trial of Intrapartum Fetal ECG ST-Segment Analysis
    Belfort, Michael A.
    Saade, George R.
    Thom, Elizabeth
    Blackwell, Sean C.
    Reddy, Uma M.
    Thorp, John M. J.
    Tita, Alan T. N.
    Miller, Russell S.
    Peaceman, Alan M.
    McKenna, David S.
    Chien, Edward K. S.
    Rouse, Dwight J.
    Gibbs, Ronald S.
    El-Sayed, Yasser Y.
    Sorokin, Yoram
    Caritis, Steve N.
    VanDorsten, J. Peter
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2015, 373 (07) : 632 - 641
  • [2] STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
    BLAND, JM
    ALTMAN, DG
    [J]. LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) : 307 - 310
  • [3] Maternal body mass index and duration of labor
    Carlhall, Sara
    Kallen, Karin
    Blomberg, Marie
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2013, 171 (01) : 49 - 53
  • [4] Influence of maternal body mass index on accuracy and reliability of external fetal monitoring techniques
    Cohen, Wayne R.
    Hayes-Gill, Barrie
    [J]. ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2014, 93 (06) : 590 - 595
  • [5] Accuracy and reliability of fetal heart rate monitoring using maternal abdominal surface electrodes
    Cohen, Wayne R.
    Ommani, Sophia
    Hassan, Sarmina
    Mirza, Fadi G.
    Solomon, Molham
    Brown, Raymond
    Schifrin, Barry S.
    Himsworth, John M.
    Hayes-Gill, Barrie R.
    [J]. ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2012, 91 (11) : 1306 - 1313
  • [6] Cunningham F, 2005, WILLIAMS OBSTET, P1600
  • [7] 1977 RIETZ LECTURE - BOOTSTRAP METHODS - ANOTHER LOOK AT THE JACKKNIFE
    EFRON, B
    [J]. ANNALS OF STATISTICS, 1979, 7 (01) : 1 - 26
  • [8] Euliano TY, 2017, J PREGNANCY, V2017, DOI 10.1155/2017/8529816
  • [9] Monitoring contractions in obese parturients - Electrohysterography compared with traditional monitoring
    Euliano, Tammy Y.
    Nguyen, Minh Tam
    Marossero, Dorothee
    Edwards, Rodney K.
    [J]. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2007, 109 (05) : 1136 - 1140
  • [10] Monitoring uterine activity during labor: a comparison of 3 methods
    Euliano, Tammy Y.
    Minh Tam Nguyen
    Darmanjian, Shalom
    McGorray, Susan P.
    Euliano, Neil
    Onkala, Allison
    Gregg, Anthony R.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2013, 208 (01) : 66.e1 - 66.e6