Screening for fetal well-being in a high-risk pregnant population comparing the nonstress test with umbilical artery doppler velocimetry: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of two different modes of antepartum fetal testing to screen for the presence of peripartum morbidity, as measured by the cesarean delivery rate for fetal distress in labor. Study Design: Over a 36-month period, all patients who were r...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2003-05, Vol.188 (5), p.1366-1371
Hauptverfasser: Williams, Keith P., Farquharson, Duncan F., Bebbington, Michael, Dansereau, Jerome, Galerneau, France, Wilson, R.D., Shaw, Dorothy, Kent, Nancy
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of two different modes of antepartum fetal testing to screen for the presence of peripartum morbidity, as measured by the cesarean delivery rate for fetal distress in labor. Study Design: Over a 36-month period, all patients who were referred to the Fetal Assessment Unit at BC Women's Hospital because of a perceived increased fetal antepartum risk at a gestational age of ≥32 weeks of gestation were approached to participate in this study. Fetal surveillance of these women was allocated randomly to either umbilical artery Doppler ultrasound testing or nonstress testing as a screening test for fetal well-being. If either the umbilical artery Doppler testing or the nonstress testing was normal, patients were screened subsequently with the same technique, according to study protocol. When the Doppler study showed a systolic/diastolic ratio of >90th percentile or the nonstress testing was equivocal (ie, variable decelerations), an amniotic fluid index was performed, as an additional screening test. When the amniotic fluid index was abnormal (
ISSN:0002-9378
1097-6868
DOI:10.1067/mob.2003.305