Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 5/2012

01-11-2012 | Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Intrapartum signal quality with external fetal heart rate monitoring: a two way trial of external Doppler CTG ultrasound and the abdominal fetal electrocardiogram

Authors: Joscha Reinhard, Barrie R. Hayes-Gill, Sven Schiermeier, Wolfgang Hatzmann, Eva Herrmann, Tomas M. Heinrich, Frank Louwen

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 5/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess the fetal heart rate (FHR) signal quality of non-invasive abdominal fetal electrocardiogram (fECG) in comparison to the Doppler ultrasound cardiotocogram (CTG) during the first and second stage of labour.

Study design

This was a prospective observational study of non-invasive fECG using five abdominally sited electrodes against the traditional Doppler ultrasound CTG probe on 144 patients. Data were analysed for signal quality before and after outlier removal.

Results

Abdominal fECG signal quality was significantly better during the first stage of labour in comparison to Doppler CTG (median fECG reliability of 95.7 % vs. median 87.3 % for Doppler, p < 0.001), whereas during second stage of labour, equivalence was demonstrated (p > 0.05). For the first and second stage of labour, fECG showed 106/135 (78.5 %) and 46/98 (46.9 %) women having fetal signal loss below 20 %, respectively. Similarly, Doppler ultrasound demonstrated 104/135 (77.0 %) and 51/98 (52.0 %) women having fetal signal loss below 20 % during first and second stage of labour, respectively.

Conclusion

The non-invasive abdominal fECG presents an improved FHR signal quality during the first stage of labour and an equivalent signal quality during the second stage.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Alfirevic Z, Devane D, Gyte GM (2006) Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD006066PubMed Alfirevic Z, Devane D, Gyte GM (2006) Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD006066PubMed
2.
go back to reference Amer-Wahlin I, Hellsten C, Norén H et al (2001) Cardiotocography only versus cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram for intrapartum fetal monitoring: a Swedish randomised controlled trial. Lancet 358:534–538PubMedCrossRef Amer-Wahlin I, Hellsten C, Norén H et al (2001) Cardiotocography only versus cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram for intrapartum fetal monitoring: a Swedish randomised controlled trial. Lancet 358:534–538PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Bakker PCAM, Colenbrander GJ, Verstraeten AA, Van Geijn HP (2004) The quality of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 116:22–27PubMedCrossRef Bakker PCAM, Colenbrander GJ, Verstraeten AA, Van Geijn HP (2004) The quality of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 116:22–27PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Dawes GS (1981) Numerical analysis of the human fetal heart rate: the quality of ultrasound records. Am J Obstet Gynecol 141:43–52PubMed Dawes GS (1981) Numerical analysis of the human fetal heart rate: the quality of ultrasound records. Am J Obstet Gynecol 141:43–52PubMed
5.
go back to reference Deutsche Gesellschaft für perinatale Medizin, AG für materno-fetale Medizin, deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (2004) Anwendung des CTG während chwangerschaft und Geburt. Frauenarzt 45:979–989 Deutsche Gesellschaft für perinatale Medizin, AG für materno-fetale Medizin, deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (2004) Anwendung des CTG während chwangerschaft und Geburt. Frauenarzt 45:979–989
6.
go back to reference Fraser WD, Turcot L, Krauss I, Brisson-Carrol G (2007) Withdrawn: amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18:CD000015 Fraser WD, Turcot L, Krauss I, Brisson-Carrol G (2007) Withdrawn: amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18:CD000015
7.
go back to reference Graham EM, Petersen SM, Christo DK et al (2006) Intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring and the prevention of prenatal brain injury. Obstet Gynecol 108:656–666PubMedCrossRef Graham EM, Petersen SM, Christo DK et al (2006) Intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring and the prevention of prenatal brain injury. Obstet Gynecol 108:656–666PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Ingemarsson I, ingemarsson E, Spencer JAD (1993) Technical aspects of fetal heart rate monitoring. In: Fetal heart rate monitoring a practical guide, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 12–26 Ingemarsson I, ingemarsson E, Spencer JAD (1993) Technical aspects of fetal heart rate monitoring. In: Fetal heart rate monitoring a practical guide, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 12–26
9.
go back to reference Neilson DR, Freeman RK, Mangan S (2008) Signal ambiguity resulting in unexpected outcome with external fetal heart rate monitoring. AJOG 717–724 Neilson DR, Freeman RK, Mangan S (2008) Signal ambiguity resulting in unexpected outcome with external fetal heart rate monitoring. AJOG 717–724
10.
go back to reference 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 212:226–229CrossRef 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 212:226–229CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Reinhard J, Hayes-Gill BR, Hatzmann W, Louwen F, Schiermeier S Intrapartum fetal and maternal heart rate ambiguity—a comparison of Doppler ultrasound CTG and the abdominal fetal electrocardiogram with maternal electrocardiogram. Gynecol Obstet Invest (submitted) Reinhard J, Hayes-Gill BR, Hatzmann W, Louwen F, Schiermeier S Intrapartum fetal and maternal heart rate ambiguity—a comparison of Doppler ultrasound CTG and the abdominal fetal electrocardiogram with maternal electrocardiogram. Gynecol Obstet Invest (submitted)
12.
go back to reference Reinhard J, Hayes-Gill BR, Yi Q, Hatzmann H, Schiermeier S (2009) Signalqualität der nicht-invasiven fetalen Echokardiographie (EKG) unter der Geburt. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 69:703–706CrossRef Reinhard J, Hayes-Gill BR, Yi Q, Hatzmann H, Schiermeier S (2009) Signalqualität der nicht-invasiven fetalen Echokardiographie (EKG) unter der Geburt. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 69:703–706CrossRef
13.
go back to reference 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 38:179–185PubMedCrossRef 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 38:179–185PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Rooth G, Huch A, Huch R (1987) FIGO news: guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 25:159–167CrossRef Rooth G, Huch A, Huch R (1987) FIGO news: guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 25:159–167CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Rooth G, Huch A, Huch R (1987) Guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring. Int J Gynecol Obstet 25:159–167CrossRef Rooth G, Huch A, Huch R (1987) Guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring. Int J Gynecol Obstet 25:159–167CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Shewa A, Hacker TW, Nuovo J (1999) Interpretation of the electronic fetal heart rate during labour. Am Family Phys 59:2507–2512 Shewa A, Hacker TW, Nuovo J (1999) Interpretation of the electronic fetal heart rate during labour. Am Family Phys 59:2507–2512
17.
go back to reference Solum T (1980) A comparison of three methods for external fetal cardiography. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scan 59:123–126CrossRef Solum T (1980) A comparison of three methods for external fetal cardiography. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scan 59:123–126CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Spencer JAD, Belcher R, Dawes GS (1987) The influence of signal loss on the comparison between computer analyses of the fetal heart rate in labour using pulsed Doppler ultrasound (with autocorrelation) and simultaneous scalp electrocardiogram. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 25:29–34PubMedCrossRef Spencer JAD, Belcher R, Dawes GS (1987) The influence of signal loss on the comparison between computer analyses of the fetal heart rate in labour using pulsed Doppler ultrasound (with autocorrelation) and simultaneous scalp electrocardiogram. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 25:29–34PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Strachan BK, van Wijngaarden WJ, Sahota D, Chang A, James DK (2000) Cardiotocography only versus cardiotocography plus PR-interval analysis in intrapartum surveillance: a randomised, multicentre trial. Lancet 355:456–459PubMed Strachan BK, van Wijngaarden WJ, Sahota D, Chang A, James DK (2000) Cardiotocography only versus cardiotocography plus PR-interval analysis in intrapartum surveillance: a randomised, multicentre trial. Lancet 355:456–459PubMed
20.
go back to reference Strachan KB, Sahota DS, van Wijngaarden WJ, James DK, Chang AMZ (2001) Computerised analysis of the fetal heart rate and relation to acidemia at delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 108:848–852CrossRef Strachan KB, Sahota DS, van Wijngaarden WJ, James DK, Chang AMZ (2001) Computerised analysis of the fetal heart rate and relation to acidemia at delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 108:848–852CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Intrapartum signal quality with external fetal heart rate monitoring: a two way trial of external Doppler CTG ultrasound and the abdominal fetal electrocardiogram
Authors
Joscha Reinhard
Barrie R. Hayes-Gill
Sven Schiermeier
Wolfgang Hatzmann
Eva Herrmann
Tomas M. Heinrich
Frank Louwen
Publication date
01-11-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 5/2012
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2413-4

Other articles of this Issue 5/2012

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 5/2012 Go to the issue