Randomised controlled trial of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring
Abstract Objective : To compare effectiveness of different methods of monitoring intrapartum fetal heart rate. Design : Prospective randomised controlled trial. Setting : Referral maternity hospital, Harare,Zimbabwe. Subjects : 1255 women who were 37 weeks or more pregnant with singleton cephalic pr...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | BMJ 1994-02, Vol.308 (6927), p.497-500 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 500 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6927 |
container_start_page | 497 |
container_title | BMJ |
container_volume | 308 |
creator | Mahomed, K Nyoni, R Mulambo, T Kasule, J Jacobus, E |
description | Abstract Objective : To compare effectiveness of different methods of monitoring intrapartum fetal heart rate. Design : Prospective randomised controlled trial. Setting : Referral maternity hospital, Harare,Zimbabwe. Subjects : 1255 women who were 37 weeks or more pregnant with singleton cephalic presentation and normal fetal heart rate before entry into study. Interventions : Intermittent monitoring of fetal heart rate by electronic monitoring, Doppler ultrasound, use of Pinard stethoscope by a research midwife, or routine use of Pinard stethoscope by attending midwife. Main outcome measures - Abnormal fetal heart rate patterns, need for operative delivery for fetal distress, neonatal mortality, Apgar scores, admission to neonatal unit, neonatal seizures, and hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Results : Abnormalities in fetal heart rate were detected in 54% (172/318) of the electronic monitoring group, 32% (100/312) of the ultrasonography group, 15% (47/310) of the Pinard stethoscope group, and 9% (28/315) of the routine monitoring group. Caesarean sections were performed for 28% (89), 24% (76), 10% (32), and 15% (46) of the four groups respectively. Neonatal outcome was best in the ultrasonography group: hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy occurred in two, one, seven, and 10 cases in the four groups respectively; neonatal seizures occurred only in the last two groups (six and nine cases respectively); and deaths occurred in eight,two, five, and nine cases respectively. Conclusions : Abnormalities in fetal heart rate were more reliably detected by Doppler ultrasonography than with Pinard stethoscope, and its use resulted in good perinatal outcome. The use ofrelatively cheap ultrasound monitors should be further evaluated and promoted in obstetric units caring for high risk pregnancies in developing countries with scarce resources. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1136/bmj.308.6927.497 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2542781</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>29722624</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>29722624</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b547t-9f3d42d7ee7dfba3dde852182c84a05020cb10e17c2958fe015ec44e02dee9b63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUuLFDEUhYMoY9PO3o1QIOhCqs37sRGGxlGh1WHwsQypyq2ZaqsqbZIS_fem6aZ9bGaV5J7vXs7NQegxwStCmHzZjNsVw3olDVUrbtQ9tCBc6lpoxu6jBTbC1Jow_RCdp7TFGFOmtJHiDJ2VspRSLNDltZt8GPsEvmrDlGMYhnLNsXdDFbqqLyW3czHPY9VBLsVbKK8qugzVGKY-h9hPN4_Qg84NCc6P5xJ9vnz9af223nx88259sakbwVWuTcc8p14BKN81jnkPWlCiaau5wwJT3DYEA1EtNUJ3gImAlnPA1AOYRrIlenWYu5ubEXwLe3uD3cV-dPGXDa63_ypTf2tvwg9LBaeqbL1Ez44DYvg-Q8q27N7CMLgJwpyskhxzKUwBn98BMsMxkaKQT_8jt2GOU_kGS5RS0hiMdaHwgWpjSClCdzJNsN3HaUuctsRp93HaEmdpefL3sqeGY3h_9G0qKZxkahSlkvKi1we9Txl-nnQXv1mpmBL2w5e13XxVV4RdX9n3hX9x4PdO7nT3GwGMwrc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1777699008</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Randomised controlled trial of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Mahomed, K ; Nyoni, R ; Mulambo, T ; Kasule, J ; Jacobus, E</creator><creatorcontrib>Mahomed, K ; Nyoni, R ; Mulambo, T ; Kasule, J ; Jacobus, E</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Objective : To compare effectiveness of different methods of monitoring intrapartum fetal heart rate. Design : Prospective randomised controlled trial. Setting : Referral maternity hospital, Harare,Zimbabwe. Subjects : 1255 women who were 37 weeks or more pregnant with singleton cephalic presentation and normal fetal heart rate before entry into study. Interventions : Intermittent monitoring of fetal heart rate by electronic monitoring, Doppler ultrasound, use of Pinard stethoscope by a research midwife, or routine use of Pinard stethoscope by attending midwife. Main outcome measures - Abnormal fetal heart rate patterns, need for operative delivery for fetal distress, neonatal mortality, Apgar scores, admission to neonatal unit, neonatal seizures, and hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Results : Abnormalities in fetal heart rate were detected in 54% (172/318) of the electronic monitoring group, 32% (100/312) of the ultrasonography group, 15% (47/310) of the Pinard stethoscope group, and 9% (28/315) of the routine monitoring group. Caesarean sections were performed for 28% (89), 24% (76), 10% (32), and 15% (46) of the four groups respectively. Neonatal outcome was best in the ultrasonography group: hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy occurred in two, one, seven, and 10 cases in the four groups respectively; neonatal seizures occurred only in the last two groups (six and nine cases respectively); and deaths occurred in eight,two, five, and nine cases respectively. Conclusions : Abnormalities in fetal heart rate were more reliably detected by Doppler ultrasonography than with Pinard stethoscope, and its use resulted in good perinatal outcome. The use ofrelatively cheap ultrasound monitors should be further evaluated and promoted in obstetric units caring for high risk pregnancies in developing countries with scarce resources.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0959-8138</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-5833</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1756-1833</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmj.308.6927.497</identifier><identifier>PMID: 8136665</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: British Medical Journal Publishing Group</publisher><subject>Acceleration ; Babies ; Cesarean section ; Childbirth & labor ; Developing countries ; Electronic monitoring ; Female ; Fetal distress ; Fetal heart rate ; Fetal monitoring ; Fetal Monitoring - methods ; Fetal Monitoring - standards ; Heart rate ; Heart Rate, Fetal ; Humans ; Hypertension ; Labor, Obstetric ; LDCs ; Methods ; Midwifery ; Morbidity ; Mortality ; Obstetrics ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Outcome ; Prenatal Care ; Sample size ; Stethoscopes ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Ultrasonography ; Ultrasonography, Prenatal</subject><ispartof>BMJ, 1994-02, Vol.308 (6927), p.497-500</ispartof><rights>1994 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright 1994 British Medical Journal</rights><rights>Copyright: 1994 (c) 1994 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b547t-9f3d42d7ee7dfba3dde852182c84a05020cb10e17c2958fe015ec44e02dee9b63</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/29722624$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/29722624$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,799,881,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8136665$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mahomed, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nyoni, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mulambo, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kasule, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jacobus, E</creatorcontrib><title>Randomised controlled trial of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring</title><title>BMJ</title><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><description>Abstract Objective : To compare effectiveness of different methods of monitoring intrapartum fetal heart rate. Design : Prospective randomised controlled trial. Setting : Referral maternity hospital, Harare,Zimbabwe. Subjects : 1255 women who were 37 weeks or more pregnant with singleton cephalic presentation and normal fetal heart rate before entry into study. Interventions : Intermittent monitoring of fetal heart rate by electronic monitoring, Doppler ultrasound, use of Pinard stethoscope by a research midwife, or routine use of Pinard stethoscope by attending midwife. Main outcome measures - Abnormal fetal heart rate patterns, need for operative delivery for fetal distress, neonatal mortality, Apgar scores, admission to neonatal unit, neonatal seizures, and hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Results : Abnormalities in fetal heart rate were detected in 54% (172/318) of the electronic monitoring group, 32% (100/312) of the ultrasonography group, 15% (47/310) of the Pinard stethoscope group, and 9% (28/315) of the routine monitoring group. Caesarean sections were performed for 28% (89), 24% (76), 10% (32), and 15% (46) of the four groups respectively. Neonatal outcome was best in the ultrasonography group: hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy occurred in two, one, seven, and 10 cases in the four groups respectively; neonatal seizures occurred only in the last two groups (six and nine cases respectively); and deaths occurred in eight,two, five, and nine cases respectively. Conclusions : Abnormalities in fetal heart rate were more reliably detected by Doppler ultrasonography than with Pinard stethoscope, and its use resulted in good perinatal outcome. The use ofrelatively cheap ultrasound monitors should be further evaluated and promoted in obstetric units caring for high risk pregnancies in developing countries with scarce resources.</description><subject>Acceleration</subject><subject>Babies</subject><subject>Cesarean section</subject><subject>Childbirth & labor</subject><subject>Developing countries</subject><subject>Electronic monitoring</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fetal distress</subject><subject>Fetal heart rate</subject><subject>Fetal monitoring</subject><subject>Fetal Monitoring - methods</subject><subject>Fetal Monitoring - standards</subject><subject>Heart rate</subject><subject>Heart Rate, Fetal</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hypertension</subject><subject>Labor, Obstetric</subject><subject>LDCs</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Midwifery</subject><subject>Morbidity</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Obstetrics</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy Outcome</subject><subject>Prenatal Care</subject><subject>Sample size</subject><subject>Stethoscopes</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Prenatal</subject><issn>0959-8138</issn><issn>1468-5833</issn><issn>1756-1833</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1994</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUuLFDEUhYMoY9PO3o1QIOhCqs37sRGGxlGh1WHwsQypyq2ZaqsqbZIS_fem6aZ9bGaV5J7vXs7NQegxwStCmHzZjNsVw3olDVUrbtQ9tCBc6lpoxu6jBTbC1Jow_RCdp7TFGFOmtJHiDJ2VspRSLNDltZt8GPsEvmrDlGMYhnLNsXdDFbqqLyW3czHPY9VBLsVbKK8qugzVGKY-h9hPN4_Qg84NCc6P5xJ9vnz9af223nx88259sakbwVWuTcc8p14BKN81jnkPWlCiaau5wwJT3DYEA1EtNUJ3gImAlnPA1AOYRrIlenWYu5ubEXwLe3uD3cV-dPGXDa63_ypTf2tvwg9LBaeqbL1Ez44DYvg-Q8q27N7CMLgJwpyskhxzKUwBn98BMsMxkaKQT_8jt2GOU_kGS5RS0hiMdaHwgWpjSClCdzJNsN3HaUuctsRp93HaEmdpefL3sqeGY3h_9G0qKZxkahSlkvKi1we9Txl-nnQXv1mpmBL2w5e13XxVV4RdX9n3hX9x4PdO7nT3GwGMwrc</recordid><startdate>19940219</startdate><enddate>19940219</enddate><creator>Mahomed, K</creator><creator>Nyoni, R</creator><creator>Mulambo, T</creator><creator>Kasule, J</creator><creator>Jacobus, E</creator><general>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</general><general>British Medical Association</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Group</general><scope>BSCLL</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>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19940219</creationdate><title>Randomised controlled trial of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring</title><author>Mahomed, K ; Nyoni, R ; Mulambo, T ; Kasule, J ; Jacobus, E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b547t-9f3d42d7ee7dfba3dde852182c84a05020cb10e17c2958fe015ec44e02dee9b63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1994</creationdate><topic>Acceleration</topic><topic>Babies</topic><topic>Cesarean section</topic><topic>Childbirth & labor</topic><topic>Developing countries</topic><topic>Electronic monitoring</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fetal distress</topic><topic>Fetal heart rate</topic><topic>Fetal monitoring</topic><topic>Fetal Monitoring - methods</topic><topic>Fetal Monitoring - standards</topic><topic>Heart rate</topic><topic>Heart Rate, Fetal</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hypertension</topic><topic>Labor, Obstetric</topic><topic>LDCs</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Midwifery</topic><topic>Morbidity</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Obstetrics</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy Outcome</topic><topic>Prenatal Care</topic><topic>Sample size</topic><topic>Stethoscopes</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Prenatal</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mahomed, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nyoni, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mulambo, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kasule, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jacobus, E</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMJ</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mahomed, K</au><au>Nyoni, R</au><au>Mulambo, T</au><au>Kasule, J</au><au>Jacobus, E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Randomised controlled trial of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring</atitle><jtitle>BMJ</jtitle><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><date>1994-02-19</date><risdate>1994</risdate><volume>308</volume><issue>6927</issue><spage>497</spage><epage>500</epage><pages>497-500</pages><issn>0959-8138</issn><eissn>1468-5833</eissn><eissn>1756-1833</eissn><abstract>Abstract Objective : To compare effectiveness of different methods of monitoring intrapartum fetal heart rate. Design : Prospective randomised controlled trial. Setting : Referral maternity hospital, Harare,Zimbabwe. Subjects : 1255 women who were 37 weeks or more pregnant with singleton cephalic presentation and normal fetal heart rate before entry into study. Interventions : Intermittent monitoring of fetal heart rate by electronic monitoring, Doppler ultrasound, use of Pinard stethoscope by a research midwife, or routine use of Pinard stethoscope by attending midwife. Main outcome measures - Abnormal fetal heart rate patterns, need for operative delivery for fetal distress, neonatal mortality, Apgar scores, admission to neonatal unit, neonatal seizures, and hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Results : Abnormalities in fetal heart rate were detected in 54% (172/318) of the electronic monitoring group, 32% (100/312) of the ultrasonography group, 15% (47/310) of the Pinard stethoscope group, and 9% (28/315) of the routine monitoring group. Caesarean sections were performed for 28% (89), 24% (76), 10% (32), and 15% (46) of the four groups respectively. Neonatal outcome was best in the ultrasonography group: hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy occurred in two, one, seven, and 10 cases in the four groups respectively; neonatal seizures occurred only in the last two groups (six and nine cases respectively); and deaths occurred in eight,two, five, and nine cases respectively. Conclusions : Abnormalities in fetal heart rate were more reliably detected by Doppler ultrasonography than with Pinard stethoscope, and its use resulted in good perinatal outcome. The use ofrelatively cheap ultrasound monitors should be further evaluated and promoted in obstetric units caring for high risk pregnancies in developing countries with scarce resources.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</pub><pmid>8136665</pmid><doi>10.1136/bmj.308.6927.497</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0959-8138 |
ispartof | BMJ, 1994-02, Vol.308 (6927), p.497-500 |
issn | 0959-8138 1468-5833 1756-1833 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2542781 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy; MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Acceleration Babies Cesarean section Childbirth & labor Developing countries Electronic monitoring Female Fetal distress Fetal heart rate Fetal monitoring Fetal Monitoring - methods Fetal Monitoring - standards Heart rate Heart Rate, Fetal Humans Hypertension Labor, Obstetric LDCs Methods Midwifery Morbidity Mortality Obstetrics Pregnancy Pregnancy Outcome Prenatal Care Sample size Stethoscopes Ultrasonic imaging Ultrasonography Ultrasonography, Prenatal |
title | Randomised controlled trial of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T05%3A09%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Randomised%20controlled%20trial%20of%20intrapartum%20fetal%20heart%20rate%20monitoring&rft.jtitle=BMJ&rft.au=Mahomed,%20K&rft.date=1994-02-19&rft.volume=308&rft.issue=6927&rft.spage=497&rft.epage=500&rft.pages=497-500&rft.issn=0959-8138&rft.eissn=1468-5833&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmj.308.6927.497&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E29722624%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1777699008&rft_id=info:pmid/8136665&rft_jstor_id=29722624&rfr_iscdi=true |