A Randomized study to assess the efficacy of the amniotic fluid index as a fetal admission test

To determine whether there is a difference in the incidence of abdominal delivery for presumed fetal distress in women who have an intrapartum fluid index assessment and those who do not. Over a 7-month period, parturients at 26–42 weeks' gestation and in early labor were randomized to the stud...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953) 1995-07, Vol.86 (1), p.9-13
Hauptverfasser: Chauhan, Suneet P., Washburne, Joseph F., Magann, Everett F., Perry, Kenneth G., Martin, James N., Morrison, John C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 13
container_issue 1
container_start_page 9
container_title Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)
container_volume 86
creator Chauhan, Suneet P.
Washburne, Joseph F.
Magann, Everett F.
Perry, Kenneth G.
Martin, James N.
Morrison, John C.
description To determine whether there is a difference in the incidence of abdominal delivery for presumed fetal distress in women who have an intrapartum fluid index assessment and those who do not. Over a 7-month period, parturients at 26–42 weeks' gestation and in early labor were randomized to the study (measured amniotic fluid index [AFI] on admission) or a control group (no sonographic assessment of amniotic fluid [AF] volume). The labor and delivery staff were aware of the AFI results of the study subjects. All patients had continuous electronic fetal monitoring, and none had an abnormal tracing on admission. Student t test or x 2 was used for statistical analysis. P < .05 was considered significant. The study ( N = 447) and control groups ( N = 436) had similar maternal demographics as well as medical and obstetric complications. In the study group, the incidence of abdominal delivery for fetal distress (29 of 447) was significantly higher than among controls (14 of 436) ( P = .02; relative risk 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.1–1.7). Among parturients who had abdominal delivery for fetal distress, the decision-to-incision times (mean ± standard deviation) were similar for parturients who had undergone assessment of AFI and those who had not (38.5 ± 14.7 versus 32.5 ± 14.7 minutes, respectively; P = .47). Mean birth weight, incidence of low birth weight, macrosomia, Apgar scores less than 7, and the number of admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit were not significantly different in the two groups. Patients having an intrapartum assessment of AFI as a fetal admission test are significantly more likely to have abdominal delivery for presumed fetal distress. However, the decision-to-incision time is not decreased and the perinatal outcome is not improved if the status of AF volume is known for patients in early labor.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/0029-7844(95)00110-D
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77342502</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>002978449500110D</els_id><sourcerecordid>77342502</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3462-c22cc0ecbb78d7945d41b3b506d56eaa82080b9be40c3b53c539b148ae71f1a63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UE1v1DAUtBCobAv_ACQfEIJD4NmO4_hSqWrLh1QJCYHEzXLsF60hiUvsUJZfj9NdLTdOT-_NzJvREPKMwRsGrHkLwHWl2rp-peVrAMagunpANqxVouJCfHtINkfKY3Ka0ncorEaLE3KiyrFgG2Iu6Gc7-TiGP-hpyovf0RypTQlTonmLFPs-OOt2NPb3ux2nEHNwtB-W4GmYPP4ufGppj9kO1PoxpBTiRDOm_IQ86u2Q8OlhnpGv766_XH6obj69_3h5cVM5UTe8cpw7B-i6TrVe6Vr6mnWik9B42aC1LYcWOt1hDa6chZNCd6xuLSrWM9uIM_Jy__d2jj-XYmxKCofDYCeMSzJKiZpL4IVY74lujinN2JvbOYx23hkGZu3VrKWZtTSjpbnv1VwV2fPD_6Ub0R9FhyIL_uKA2-Ts0M92ciEdaUIqriT8c7-LQ8Y5_RiWO5zNFu2Qt8UMoCkpK6a1BFW2aj2toc_3MiwV_gpFkVzAyaEPM7psfAz_j_8X1uWjUA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>77342502</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Randomized study to assess the efficacy of the amniotic fluid index as a fetal admission test</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Chauhan, Suneet P. ; Washburne, Joseph F. ; Magann, Everett F. ; Perry, Kenneth G. ; Martin, James N. ; Morrison, John C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Chauhan, Suneet P. ; Washburne, Joseph F. ; Magann, Everett F. ; Perry, Kenneth G. ; Martin, James N. ; Morrison, John C.</creatorcontrib><description>To determine whether there is a difference in the incidence of abdominal delivery for presumed fetal distress in women who have an intrapartum fluid index assessment and those who do not. Over a 7-month period, parturients at 26–42 weeks' gestation and in early labor were randomized to the study (measured amniotic fluid index [AFI] on admission) or a control group (no sonographic assessment of amniotic fluid [AF] volume). The labor and delivery staff were aware of the AFI results of the study subjects. All patients had continuous electronic fetal monitoring, and none had an abnormal tracing on admission. Student t test or x 2 was used for statistical analysis. P &lt; .05 was considered significant. The study ( N = 447) and control groups ( N = 436) had similar maternal demographics as well as medical and obstetric complications. In the study group, the incidence of abdominal delivery for fetal distress (29 of 447) was significantly higher than among controls (14 of 436) ( P = .02; relative risk 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.1–1.7). Among parturients who had abdominal delivery for fetal distress, the decision-to-incision times (mean ± standard deviation) were similar for parturients who had undergone assessment of AFI and those who had not (38.5 ± 14.7 versus 32.5 ± 14.7 minutes, respectively; P = .47). Mean birth weight, incidence of low birth weight, macrosomia, Apgar scores less than 7, and the number of admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit were not significantly different in the two groups. Patients having an intrapartum assessment of AFI as a fetal admission test are significantly more likely to have abdominal delivery for presumed fetal distress. However, the decision-to-incision time is not decreased and the perinatal outcome is not improved if the status of AF volume is known for patients in early labor.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0029-7844</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-233X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/0029-7844(95)00110-D</identifier><identifier>PMID: 7784029</identifier><identifier>CODEN: OBGNAS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Amniotic Fluid - diagnostic imaging ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cesarean Section - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Diagnostic Tests, Routine ; Diseases of mother, fetus and pregnancy ; Female ; Fetal Distress - diagnostic imaging ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; Incidence ; Medical sciences ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Complications - epidemiology ; Pregnancy. Fetus. Placenta ; Ultrasonography</subject><ispartof>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953), 1995-07, Vol.86 (1), p.9-13</ispartof><rights>1995 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists</rights><rights>1995 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3462-c22cc0ecbb78d7945d41b3b506d56eaa82080b9be40c3b53c539b148ae71f1a63</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=3572750$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7784029$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chauhan, Suneet P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Washburne, Joseph F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Magann, Everett F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perry, Kenneth G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, James N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morrison, John C.</creatorcontrib><title>A Randomized study to assess the efficacy of the amniotic fluid index as a fetal admission test</title><title>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)</title><addtitle>Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>To determine whether there is a difference in the incidence of abdominal delivery for presumed fetal distress in women who have an intrapartum fluid index assessment and those who do not. Over a 7-month period, parturients at 26–42 weeks' gestation and in early labor were randomized to the study (measured amniotic fluid index [AFI] on admission) or a control group (no sonographic assessment of amniotic fluid [AF] volume). The labor and delivery staff were aware of the AFI results of the study subjects. All patients had continuous electronic fetal monitoring, and none had an abnormal tracing on admission. Student t test or x 2 was used for statistical analysis. P &lt; .05 was considered significant. The study ( N = 447) and control groups ( N = 436) had similar maternal demographics as well as medical and obstetric complications. In the study group, the incidence of abdominal delivery for fetal distress (29 of 447) was significantly higher than among controls (14 of 436) ( P = .02; relative risk 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.1–1.7). Among parturients who had abdominal delivery for fetal distress, the decision-to-incision times (mean ± standard deviation) were similar for parturients who had undergone assessment of AFI and those who had not (38.5 ± 14.7 versus 32.5 ± 14.7 minutes, respectively; P = .47). Mean birth weight, incidence of low birth weight, macrosomia, Apgar scores less than 7, and the number of admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit were not significantly different in the two groups. Patients having an intrapartum assessment of AFI as a fetal admission test are significantly more likely to have abdominal delivery for presumed fetal distress. However, the decision-to-incision time is not decreased and the perinatal outcome is not improved if the status of AF volume is known for patients in early labor.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Amniotic Fluid - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cesarean Section - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Diagnostic Tests, Routine</subject><subject>Diseases of mother, fetus and pregnancy</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fetal Distress - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incidence</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Pregnancy. Fetus. Placenta</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><issn>0029-7844</issn><issn>1873-233X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1995</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UE1v1DAUtBCobAv_ACQfEIJD4NmO4_hSqWrLh1QJCYHEzXLsF60hiUvsUJZfj9NdLTdOT-_NzJvREPKMwRsGrHkLwHWl2rp-peVrAMagunpANqxVouJCfHtINkfKY3Ka0ncorEaLE3KiyrFgG2Iu6Gc7-TiGP-hpyovf0RypTQlTonmLFPs-OOt2NPb3ux2nEHNwtB-W4GmYPP4ufGppj9kO1PoxpBTiRDOm_IQ86u2Q8OlhnpGv766_XH6obj69_3h5cVM5UTe8cpw7B-i6TrVe6Vr6mnWik9B42aC1LYcWOt1hDa6chZNCd6xuLSrWM9uIM_Jy__d2jj-XYmxKCofDYCeMSzJKiZpL4IVY74lujinN2JvbOYx23hkGZu3VrKWZtTSjpbnv1VwV2fPD_6Ub0R9FhyIL_uKA2-Ts0M92ciEdaUIqriT8c7-LQ8Y5_RiWO5zNFu2Qt8UMoCkpK6a1BFW2aj2toc_3MiwV_gpFkVzAyaEPM7psfAz_j_8X1uWjUA</recordid><startdate>199507</startdate><enddate>199507</enddate><creator>Chauhan, Suneet P.</creator><creator>Washburne, Joseph F.</creator><creator>Magann, Everett F.</creator><creator>Perry, Kenneth G.</creator><creator>Martin, James N.</creator><creator>Morrison, John C.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists</general><general>Elsevier Science</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199507</creationdate><title>A Randomized study to assess the efficacy of the amniotic fluid index as a fetal admission test</title><author>Chauhan, Suneet P. ; Washburne, Joseph F. ; Magann, Everett F. ; Perry, Kenneth G. ; Martin, James N. ; Morrison, John C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3462-c22cc0ecbb78d7945d41b3b506d56eaa82080b9be40c3b53c539b148ae71f1a63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1995</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Amniotic Fluid - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cesarean Section - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Diagnostic Tests, Routine</topic><topic>Diseases of mother, fetus and pregnancy</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fetal Distress - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incidence</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Pregnancy. Fetus. Placenta</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chauhan, Suneet P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Washburne, Joseph F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Magann, Everett F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perry, Kenneth G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, James N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morrison, John C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chauhan, Suneet P.</au><au>Washburne, Joseph F.</au><au>Magann, Everett F.</au><au>Perry, Kenneth G.</au><au>Martin, James N.</au><au>Morrison, John C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Randomized study to assess the efficacy of the amniotic fluid index as a fetal admission test</atitle><jtitle>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)</jtitle><addtitle>Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>1995-07</date><risdate>1995</risdate><volume>86</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>9</spage><epage>13</epage><pages>9-13</pages><issn>0029-7844</issn><eissn>1873-233X</eissn><coden>OBGNAS</coden><abstract>To determine whether there is a difference in the incidence of abdominal delivery for presumed fetal distress in women who have an intrapartum fluid index assessment and those who do not. Over a 7-month period, parturients at 26–42 weeks' gestation and in early labor were randomized to the study (measured amniotic fluid index [AFI] on admission) or a control group (no sonographic assessment of amniotic fluid [AF] volume). The labor and delivery staff were aware of the AFI results of the study subjects. All patients had continuous electronic fetal monitoring, and none had an abnormal tracing on admission. Student t test or x 2 was used for statistical analysis. P &lt; .05 was considered significant. The study ( N = 447) and control groups ( N = 436) had similar maternal demographics as well as medical and obstetric complications. In the study group, the incidence of abdominal delivery for fetal distress (29 of 447) was significantly higher than among controls (14 of 436) ( P = .02; relative risk 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.1–1.7). Among parturients who had abdominal delivery for fetal distress, the decision-to-incision times (mean ± standard deviation) were similar for parturients who had undergone assessment of AFI and those who had not (38.5 ± 14.7 versus 32.5 ± 14.7 minutes, respectively; P = .47). Mean birth weight, incidence of low birth weight, macrosomia, Apgar scores less than 7, and the number of admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit were not significantly different in the two groups. Patients having an intrapartum assessment of AFI as a fetal admission test are significantly more likely to have abdominal delivery for presumed fetal distress. However, the decision-to-incision time is not decreased and the perinatal outcome is not improved if the status of AF volume is known for patients in early labor.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>7784029</pmid><doi>10.1016/0029-7844(95)00110-D</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0029-7844
ispartof Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953), 1995-07, Vol.86 (1), p.9-13
issn 0029-7844
1873-233X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77342502
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Adult
Amniotic Fluid - diagnostic imaging
Biological and medical sciences
Cesarean Section - statistics & numerical data
Diagnostic Tests, Routine
Diseases of mother, fetus and pregnancy
Female
Fetal Distress - diagnostic imaging
Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics
Humans
Incidence
Medical sciences
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Complications - epidemiology
Pregnancy. Fetus. Placenta
Ultrasonography
title A Randomized study to assess the efficacy of the amniotic fluid index as a fetal admission test
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T08%3A50%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Randomized%20study%20to%20assess%20the%20efficacy%20of%20the%20amniotic%20fluid%20index%20as%20a%20fetal%20admission%20test&rft.jtitle=Obstetrics%20and%20gynecology%20(New%20York.%201953)&rft.au=Chauhan,%20Suneet%20P.&rft.date=1995-07&rft.volume=86&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=9&rft.epage=13&rft.pages=9-13&rft.issn=0029-7844&rft.eissn=1873-233X&rft.coden=OBGNAS&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/0029-7844(95)00110-D&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E77342502%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=77342502&rft_id=info:pmid/7784029&rft_els_id=002978449500110D&rfr_iscdi=true