Twenty-four-hour CTG monitoring: comparison of normal pregnancies of 25-30 weeks of gestation versus 36-42 weeks of gestation

Is portable foetal electrocardiogram monitor feasible for foetal heart rate monitoring of small for gestational age foetuses in the home environment

Small-for-gestational-age (SGA) foetuses are at greater risk of complications than normal foetuses. Studies have demonstrated that foetal electrocardiogram (ECG) device (Monica-AN24) can be employed for monitoring foetal heart rate (FHR). However, its reliability and acceptability has not been assessed in SGA foetuses. This study was aimed at: (a) determining the acceptability of wearing the device more than once, (b) investigating the reliability of acquiring successful FHR data at different gestation. Patients with singleton non-anomalous foetus >24 weeks gestation and an estimated foetal weight below tenth percentile were recruited. Thirty-five women wore the device once. Twenty-four of these wore second time (68.6%). Overall, success-rate of FHR signals was 48.6% and increased to 68.8% beyond 34 weeks gestation. Foetal ECG is a promising method for monitoring SGA foetus >34 weeks gestation. Compared to day recordings, foetal signals were more reliable at night. Further studies are required before its clinical utility can be ascertained. IMPACT STATEMENT What is already known on this subject? Pregnancies that are affected by small-for-gestational-age (SGA) foetus pose a major public health problem and are associated with increased perinatal morbidity and mortality. There is no consensus on the optimal timing of delivery. Current methods employed for monitoring SGA foetuses include ultrasound scans for foetal-biometry and Doppler assessments. However, they provide a snapshot of information on foetal well-being, restrict patient mobility and cannot be employed over long-time periods. It is plausible that ambulatory foetal-ECG device that enable monitoring over a longer time period may better inform decisions about the timing of delivery. What do the results of this study add? Trans-abdominal foetal-ECG is a promising method of monitoring SGA foetus in the home setting with a success rate of acquiring reliable foetal heart rate (FHR) data over 90% at night time. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Overall, the study approved the concept of long-term home monitoring and has highlighted the facilitators and barriers to wearing the monitor in clinical care. These observations can be used to undertake robust research to assess the use of foetal-ECG monitor singly or in conjunction with current monitoring techniques for optimal foetal surveillance.

Antenatal cardiotocography for fetal assessment

BACKGROUND

Cardiotocography (CTG) is a continuous recording of the fetal heart rate obtained via an ultrasound transducer placed on the mother's abdomen. CTG is widely used in pregnancy as a method of assessing fetal well-being, predominantly in pregnancies with increased risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of antenatal CTG (both traditional and computerised assessments) in improving outcomes for mothers and babies during and after pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (26 June 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared traditional antenatal CTG with no CTG or CTG results concealed; computerised CTG with no CTG or CTG results concealed; and computerised CTG with traditional CTG.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies (involving 2105 women) are included. Overall, the included studies were not of high quality, and only two had both adequate randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment. All studies that were able to be included enrolled only women at increased risk of complications.Comparison of traditional CTG versus no CTG showed no significant difference identified in perinatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 4.42, 2.3% versus 1.1%, four studies, N = 1627, low quality evidence) or potentially preventable deaths (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.30, four studies, N = 1627), though the meta-analysis was underpowered to assess this outcome. Similarly, there was no significant difference identified in caesarean sections (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.28, 19.7% versus 18.5%, three trials, N = 1279, low quality evidence). There was also no significant difference identified for secondary outcomes related to Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.88, one trial, N = 396, very low quality evidence); or admission to neonatal special care units or neonatal intensive care units (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.39, two trials, N = 883, low quality evidence), nor in the other secondary outcomes that were assessed.There were no eligible studies that compared computerised CTG with no CTG.Comparison of computerised CTG versus traditional CTG showed a significant reduction in perinatal mortality with computerised CTG (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.88, two studies, 0.9% versus 4.2%, 469 women, moderate quality evidence). However, there was no significant difference identified in potentially preventable deaths (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.29, two studies, N = 469), though the meta-analysis was underpowered to assess this outcome. There was no significant difference identified in caesarean sections (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.24, 63% versus 72%, one study, N = 59, low quality evidence), Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.74, two studies, N = 469, very low quality evidence) or in secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear evidence that antenatal CTG improves perinatal outcome, but further studies focusing on the use of computerised CTG in specific populations of women with increased risk of complications are warranted.

Antenatal cardiotocography for fetal assessment

BACKGROUND

Cardiotocography (CTG) is a continuous recording of the fetal heart rate obtained via an ultrasound transducer placed on the mother's abdomen. CTG is widely used in pregnancy as a method of assessing fetal well-being, predominantly in pregnancies with increased risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of antenatal CTG (both traditional and computerised assessments) in improving outcomes for mothers and babies during and after pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (9 July 2012) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared traditional antenatal CTG with no CTG or CTG results concealed; computerised CTG with no CTG or CTG results concealed; and computerised CTG with traditional CTG.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies (involving 2105 women) are included. Overall, the included studies were not of high quality, and only two had both adequate randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment. All studies that were able to be included enrolled only women at increased risk of complications.Comparison of traditional CTG versus no CTG showed no significant difference identified in perinatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 4.42, 2.3% versus 1.1%, four studies, N = 1627) or potentially preventable deaths (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.30, four studies, N = 1627), though the meta-analysis was underpowered to assess this outcome. Similarly, there was no significant difference identified in caesarean sections (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.28, 19.7% versus 18.5%, three trials, N = 1279) nor in the secondary outcomes that were assessed.There were no eligible studies that compared computerised CTG with no CTG.Comparison of computerised CTG versus traditional CTG showed a significant reduction in perinatal mortality with computerised CTG (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.88, two studies, 0.9% versus 4.2%, 469 women). However, there was no significant difference identified in potentially preventable deaths (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.29, two studies, N = 469), though the meta-analysis was underpowered to assess this outcome. There was no significant difference identified in caesarean sections (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.24, 63% versus 72%, one study, N = 59) or in secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear evidence that antenatal CTG improves perinatal outcome, but further studies focusing on the use of computerised CTG in specific populations of women with increased risk of complications are warranted.

Antenatal cardiotocography for fetal assessment

BACKGROUND

Cardiotocography (CTG) is a continuous recording of the fetal heart rate obtained via an ultrasound transducer placed on the mother's abdomen. CTG is widely used in pregnancy as a method of assessing fetal well-being, predominantly in pregnancies with increased risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of antenatal CTG (both traditional and computerised assessments) in improving outcomes for mothers and babies during and after pregnancy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared traditional antenatal CTG with no CTG or CTG results concealed; computerised CTG with no CTG or CTG results concealed; and computerised CTG with traditional CTG.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed eligibility, quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies (involving 2105 women) are included. Overall, the included studies were not of high quality, and only two had both adequate randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment. All studies that were able to be included enrolled only women at increased risk of complications.Comparison of traditional CTG versus no CTG showed no significant difference identified in perinatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 4.42, 2.3% versus 1.1%, four studies, N = 1627) or potentially preventable deaths (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.30, four studies, N = 1627, though the meta-analysis was underpowered to assess this outcome. Similarly, there was no significant difference identified in caesarean sections (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.28, 19.7% versus 18.5%, three trials, N = 1279) nor in the secondary outcomes that were assessed.There were no eligible studies that compared computerised CTG with no CTG.Comparison of computerised CTG versus traditional CTG showed a significant reduction in perinatal mortality with computerised CTG (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.88, two studies, 0.9% versus 4.2%, 469 women, graph 3.1.1). However, there was no significant difference identified in potentially preventable deaths (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.29, two studies, N = 469), though the meta-analysis was underpowered to assess this outcome. There was no significant difference identified in caesarean sections (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.24, 63% versus 72%, one study, N = 59) or in secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear evidence that antenatal CTG improves perinatal outcome, but further studies focusing on the use of computerised CTG in specific populations of women with increased risk of complications are warranted.