Fetal blood sampling in labour and the decision to delivery interval

Fetal scalp stimulation for assessing fetal well-being during labour

BACKGROUND

Continuous fetal heart rate monitoring by cardiotocography (CTG) is used in labour for women with complicated pregnancies. Fetal heart rate abnormalities are common and may result in the decision to expedite delivery by caesarean section. Fetal scalp stimulation (FSS) is a second-line test of fetal well-being that may provide reassurance that the labour can continue.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate methods of FSS as second-line tests of intrapartum fetal well-being in cases of non-reassuring CTG. FSS and CTG were compared to CTG alone, and to CTG with fetal blood sampling (FBS).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (which includes trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the WHO ICTRP and conference proceedings), ClinicalTrials.gov (18 October 2022), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any form of FSS to assess fetal well-being in labour. Quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and studies published in abstract form were also eligible for inclusion, but none were identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials, involving 377 women, met the inclusion criteria for this review. Both trials were conducted in hospital settings and included women with singleton, term (37+0 weeks or more) pregnancies, a cephalic presentation, and abnormal CTG. Follow-up was until hospital discharge after the birth. A pilot trial of 50 women in a high-income country (Ireland) compared CTG and digital fetal scalp stimulation (dFSS) with CTG and fetal blood sampling (FBS). A single-centre trial of 327 women in a lower middle-income country (India) compared CTG and manual fetal stimulation (abdominal or vaginal scalp stimulation) with CTG alone. The two included studies were at moderate or unclear risk of bias. Both trials provided clear information on allocation concealment but it was not possible to blind participants or health professionals in relation to the intervention. Although objective outcome measures were reported, outcome assessment was not blinded or blinding was unclear. dFSS and CTG versus FBS and CTG There were no perinatal deaths and data were not reported for neurodevelopmental disability at >/= 12 months. The risk of caesarean section (CS) may be lower with dFSS compared to FBS (risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.92; 1 pilot trial, 50 women; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain. There were no cases of neonatal encephalopathy reported. The evidence was also very uncertain between dFSS and FBS for assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.75; very low-certainty evidence) and for the spontaneous vaginal birth rate (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.68 to 8.01, very low-certainty evidence). Maternal acceptability of the procedures was not reported. FSS and CTG versus CTG alone Manual stimulation of the fetus was performed either abdominally (92/164) or vaginally (72/164). There were no perinatal deaths and data were not reported for neurodevelopmental disability at >/= 12 months. There may be little differences in the risk of CS on comparing manual fetal stimulation and CTG with CTG alone (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.18; 1 trial, 327 women; very low-certainty evidence), but again the evidence was very uncertain. There were no cases of neonatal encephalopathy reported. There may be no differences in the risk of assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.60; very low-certainty evidence) or in the rates of spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.21, very low-certainty evidence), but again the evidence is very uncertain. Maternal acceptability of abdominal stimulation/FSS was not reported although 13 women withdrew consent after randomisation due to concerns about fetal well-being.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-certainty evidence available which makes it unclear whether stimulating the fetal scalp is a safe and effective way to confirm fetal well-being in labour. Evidence was downgraded based on limitations in study design and imprecision. Further high-quality studies of adequate sample size are required to evaluate this research question. In order to be generalisable, these trials should be conducted in different settings, including broad clinical criteria at both preterm and term gestational ages, and standardising the method of stimulation. There is an ongoing study (FIRSST) that will be incorporated into this review in a subsequent update.

Digital fetal scalp stimulation (dFSS) versus fetal blood sampling (FBS) to assess fetal wellbeing in labour-a multi-centre randomised controlled trial: Fetal Intrapartum Randomised Scalp Stimulation Trial (FIRSST NCT05306756)

BACKGROUND

Cardiotocography (CTG) is a screening test used to detect fetal hypoxia in labour. It has a high false positive rate resulting in many potentially unnecessary caesarean sections. Fetal blood sampling (FBS) is a second-line test of the acid-base status of the fetus. It is used to provide either reassurance that it is safe for labour to continue or objective evidence of compromise so that delivery can be expedited. Digital fetal scalp stimulation (dFSS) to elicit a fetal heart rate acceleration is an alternative less invasive second-line test of fetal wellbeing. This study aims to provide robust evidence on the role of these two second-line tests in assessing fetal wellbeing and potentially preventing operative delivery.

METHODS

A multi-centre parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT) is planned in four maternity centres in Ireland. The study aims to recruit 2500 nulliparous women with a term (≥37+0 weeks) singleton pregnancy who require a second-line test of fetal wellbeing in labour due to an abnormal CTG. Women will be allocated randomly to dFSS or FBS on a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is caesarean section. With 1250 women in each arm, the study will have 90% power to detect a difference of 5-6%, at a two-sided alpha significance level of 5%, assuming a caesarean section rate of at least 20% in the dFSS group.

DISCUSSION

If the proposed study shows evidence that dFSS is a safe, reliable and effective alternative to FBS, this would have ground-breaking implications for labour management worldwide. It could potentially lead to a reduction in invasive procedures and emergency caesarean sections.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05306756. Registered on 31 March 2022. The trial commenced enrolment on 10 May 2022. Ethical committee approval has been granted by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) of each hospital: Dublin/CWIUH REC: 12.06.2019; Cork/UCC REC: 29.11.2019; Galway/NUIG REC: 06.09.2019; Limerick/UL REC: 30.09.2019.

Defining the decision-to-delivery interval at caesarean section: narrative literature review and proposal for standardisation

The decision-to-delivery interval is a widely used term at non-elective caesarean section. While the definition may appear self-evident, there is no universally agreed consensus about when this period begins and ends. We reviewed the literature for original research utilising the terms 'decision-to-delivery', 'decision-to-incision' or 'incision-to-delivery' and examined definitions used for decision, delivery, incision, as well as any additional time intervals that were assessed. Our analysis demonstrated an inconsistent non-standardised approach to defining these intervals, which might have clinical practice and medicolegal ramifications. We propose that the decision-to-delivery interval should be defined as follows: the interval between the time at which the senior obstetrician makes the decision that a caesarean section is required and the time at which the fetus (or first fetus in the case of multiples) is delivered. The decision time should ideally be recorded contemporaneously in the medical notes or partogram.

Comparing second-line tests to assess fetal wellbeing in Labor: a feasibility study and pilot randomized controlled trial

Objective: To explore the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to compare the performance of digital fetal scalp stimulation (dFSS) and fetal blood sampling (FBS) as second-line tests of fetal wellbeing in Labor.Design: A feasibility study included 66 women who consented to both dFSS and FBS performed contemporaneously. A pilot randomized controlled trial included 50 women who were randomized to either dFSS or FBS.Setting: University-affiliated maternity hospital.Population: Women in Labor who required second-line testing of fetal well-being following abnormal fetal heart rate monitoring.Outcome measures: The primary outcome of interest was delivery by emergency cesarean section. Secondary outcomes included maternal and perinatal morbidity outcomes and procedural factors.Results: Of the 66 women recruited to the feasibility study 50 (76%) received the two interventions as per protocol. The demographic data indicated that future RCT should be limited to nulliparous women. After initial training and reminders, the dFSS procedure appeared to be acceptable to patients and clinicians and was interpreted appropriately. Recruitment of eligible women to the pilot RCT was successful (88%) with 50 of 63 eligible women randomized (79%) and no drop-outs. The cesarean section rate was high in both arms as expected with a cohort of women requiring second-line tests for abnormal fetal heart rate monitoring in Labor (5/25; 20% dFSS versus 13/25; 52% FBS, p = .018). Conservative estimates suggest that a sample size of 2500 randomized women would be required for a definitive RCT.Conclusions: This study suggests that dFSS, which has the potential to be a reliable alternative to FBS, could be evaluated in a well-designed randomized controlled trial.Trial registration: The definitive trial has been registered ISRCTN 13295826.

Cervical dilatation and grade of doctor affects the interval between decision and result of fetal scalp blood sampling in labour

Fetal scalp blood sampling (FSBS) is used to provide information regarding fetal acid-base status during labour. This study assessed the interval between the decision to perform the procedure and obtaining the result and evaluated whether it is affected by cervical dilatation or the experience of the doctor. The median time for FSBS was 10 min. When cervical dilatation was ≤4 cm samples took approximately 30% longer to obtain. After adjustment for dilation, there were no significant differences between different grades of doctors. FSBS is shorter than previously reported; clinicians should be aware that procedures in early labour take longer to complete.

The reliability of foetal blood sampling as a test of foetal acidosis in labour

OBJECTIVES

To establish whether foetal blood sampling for pH is a reliable test of foetal acidosis in labour by comparing paired foetal blood samples taken at a single procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a prospective study assessing 293 consecutive attempts at foetal blood sampling in labour over a four month period from February to May 2012. A total of 100 paired samples were suitable for analysis. We compared the consistency of pH results of paired foetal blood samples, evaluated cases where inconsistent results would result in conflicting clinical decisions, and explored factors associated with discordant results.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference between the mean pH of the two samples: 7.297 (SD 0.065) versus 7.315 (SD 0.059), p<0.0005. Of the 100 paired samples, 43 had a difference greater than the laboratory acceptable maximum analytical difference of 0.038. There was discordance between the samples in 16 cases with results crossing a decision threshold, and in 11 cases (69%) delivery was by emergency caesarean section. Inconsistent results were not associated with specific clinical factors and occurred more often with senior operators.

CONCLUSION

Foetal blood sampling is considered by many as the gold standard in assessing intrapartum foetal wellbeing. We have demonstrated inconsistency of paired foetal blood pH results which suggests that foetal blood sampling should not be considered infallible.

"Every case of asphyxia can be used as a learning example". Conclusions from an analysis of substandard obstetrical care

AIM

To propose suggestions for improvements in care based on conclusions from studies on low Apgar scores and substandard care during labor.

SETTING AND PATIENTS

Studies on infants with low Apgar scores in a general obstetric population 2004-2006 and claims for financial compensation on the behalf of infants, based on the suspicion that substandard care in conjunction with childbirth has caused severe asphyxia or neonatal death in Sweden 1990-2005.

RESULTS

The most common flaws were related to insufficient fetal surveillance, defective interpretation of cardiotocography (CTG) tracings, not acting in a timely fashion on abnormal CTG, and the incautious use of oxytocin. Besides, in half of the infants a suboptimal mode of delivery added further trauma to the already asphyxiated infant. Additionally, resuscitation was unsatisfactory in many of these infants. The most critical flaw was defective compliance with the guidelines concerning ventilation and the early paging of skilled personnel in cases of imminent asphyxia or known complications during labor. In many case reports, the documentation of the neonatal resuscitation was insufficient to enable accurate and reliable evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Examples of proposed improvements in care during labor are the introduction of a permanent educational atmosphere with aside time for daily educational rounds and discussion, cooperation around the use of standardized terminology in CTG interpretation, the cautious use of oxytocin, and the routine paging of a pediatrician before birth in cases of complicated delivery or imminent asphyxia. The proposed interventions need to be evaluated in clinical trials in the future.

How often is a low Apgar score the result of substandard care during labour?

Please cite this paper as: Berglund S, Pettersson H, Cnattingius S, Grunewald C. How often is a low Apgar score the result of substandard care during labour? BJOG 2010;117:968-978. Objective To increase our knowledge of the occurrence of substandard care during labour. Design A population-based case-control study. Setting Stockholm County. Population Infants born in the period 2004-2006 in Stockholm County. Methods Cases and controls were identified from the Swedish Medical Birth Register, had a gestational age of >/=33 complete weeks, had planned for a vaginal delivery, and had a normal cardiotocographic (CTG) recording on admission. We compared 313 infants with an Apgar score of <7 at 5 minutes of age with 313 randomly selected controls with a full Apgar score, matched for year of birth. Main outcome measure Substandard care during labour. Results We found that 62% of cases and 36% of controls were subject to some form of substandard care during labour. In half of the cases and in 12% of the controls, CTG was abnormal for >/=45 minutes before birth. Fetal blood sampling was not performed in 79% of both cases and controls, when indicated. Oxytocin was provided without signs of uterine inertia in 20% of both cases and controls. Uterine contractions were hyperstimulated by oxytocin in 29% of cases and in 9% of controls, and the dose of oxytocin was increased despite abnormal CTG in 19% and 6% of cases and controls, respectively. Assuming that substandard care is a risk factor for low Apgar score, we estimate that up to 42% of the cases could be prevented by avoiding substandard care. Conclusions There was substandard care during labour of two-thirds of infants with a low Apgar score. The main reasons for substandard care were related to misinterpretation of CTG, not acting on an abnormal CTG in a timely fashion and incautious use of oxytocin.