Reduction in caesarean delivery with fetal heart rate monitoring and intermittent pulse oximetry after induction of labour with misoprostol

Effectiveness of intrapartum fetal surveillance to improve maternal and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND:

Cesarean delivery is the most common surgical procedure worldwide. Intrapartum fetal surveillance is routinely offered to improve neonatal outcomes, but the effects of different methods on the risk of emergency cesarean deliveries remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of different types of fetal surveillance.

METHODS:

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL until June 1, 2020, for randomized trials evaluating any intrapartum fetal surveillance method. We performed a network meta-analysis within a frequentist framework. We assessed the quality and network inconsistency of trials. We reported primarily on intrapartum emergency cesarean deliveries and other secondary maternal and neonatal outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS:

We included 33 trials (118 863 patients) evaluating intermittent auscultation with Pinard stethoscope/handheld Doppler (IA), cardiotocography (CTG), computerized cardiotocography (cCTG), CTG with fetal scalp lactate (CTG-lactate), CTG with fetal scalp pH analysis (CTG-FBS), CTG with fetal pulse oximetry (FPO-CTG), CTG with fetal heart electrocardiogram (CTG-STAN) and their combinations. Intermittent auscultation reduced the risk of emergency cesarean deliveries compared with other types of surveillance (IA v. CTG: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72–0.97; IA v. CTG-FBS: RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.63–0.80; IA v.CTG-lactate: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64–0.92; IA v. FPO-CTG: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65–0.87; IA v.FPO-CTG-FBS: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67–0.99; cCTG-FBS v. IA: RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.04–1.42), except STAN-CTG-FBS (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.98–1.40). There was a similar reduction observed for emergency cesarean deliveries for fetal distress. None of the evaluated methods was associated with a reduced risk of neonatal acidemia, neonatal unit admissions, Apgar scores or perinatal death.

INTERPRETATION:

Compared with other types of fetal surveillance, intermittent auscultation seems to reduce emergency cesarean deliveries in labour without increasing adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes.

Reevaluation of intrapartum fetal monitoring using fetal oximetry: A review

AIM

Although several studies reported the measurement of fetal oxygen saturation using fetal pulse oximetry (FPO) for evaluation of the fetal intrapartum condition, a systematic review of the seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provided no evidence to support FPO for intrapartum fetal monitoring. In the present review, we re-evaluate an overview for the use of FPO and seven RCTs of FPO.

METHODS

We reviewed numerous previous reports on FPO and seven RCTs of intrapartum FPO. RCTs were conducted with the main outcome measure being a reduction in the cesarean section rate.

RESULTS

The largest trial with 5341 entries failed to show any reduction. The negative result from this RCT may be explained by the use of a different cutoff value for fetal oxygen saturation compared to the other RCT; in addition, there were differences in the indications for cesarean section due to dystocia and in the definition of non-reassuring fetal status (NRFS). An abnormal FPO value, defined as the fetal oxygen saturation value <30% for at least 10 min, is useful for making a diagnosis of fetal acidosis. A newly developed device, an examiner's finger-mounted tissue oximetry, accurately measures tissue oxygen saturation while overcoming the drawbacks of FPO, such as infection risk and slipping off of the sensor during descent of the fetal head.

CONCLUSION

FPO (including the new device) with fetal heart rate monitoring in selected cases of NRFS may reduce the cesarean section rate.

What we have learned about intrapartum fetal monitoring trials in the MFMU Network

The vast majority of pregnant women are subjected to electronic fetal heart monitoring during labor. There is limited evidence to support its benefit compared with intermittent auscultation. In addition, there is significant variability in interpretation and its false-positive rate is high. The latter may have contributed to the rise in operative deliveries. In order to address the critical need for better approaches to intrapartum monitoring, the MFMU Network has completed two large multisite randomized trials, one to evaluate fetal pulse oximetry and the other to evaluate fetal ECG ST segment analysis (STAN). Both of these technologies had been approved for clinical use in the United States based on prior smaller trials. These technologies were evaluated in laboring women near term and their primary outcomes were overall cesarean delivery for the oximetry trial and a composite adverse neonatal outcome for STAN. Both the trials failed to show a benefit of the technology, neither in the rates of operative deliveries nor in the rates of adverse neonatal outcomes. The experience with these trials, summarized in this report, highlights the need for rigorous evidence before introduction of new technology into clinical practice and provides a blueprint for future trials to address the need for better intrapartum monitoring approaches.

Fetal pulse oximetry for fetal assessment in labour

BACKGROUND

The use of conventional cardiotocographic (CTG) monitoring of fetal well-being during labour is associated with an increased caesarean section rate, compared with intermittent auscultation of the fetal heart rate, resulting in a reduction in neonatal seizures, although no differences in other neonatal outcomes. To improve the sensitivity of this test and therefore reduce the number of caesarean sections performed for nonreassuring fetal status, several additional measures of evaluating fetal well-being have been considered. These have demonstrated some effect on reducing caesarean section rates, for example, fetal scalp blood sampling for pH estimation/lactate measurement. The adaptation of pulse oximetry for use in the unborn fetus could potentially contribute to improved evaluation during labour and therefore lead to a reduction in caesarean sections for nonreassuring fetal status, without any change in neonatal outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of fetal intrapartum pulse oximetry with other surveillance techniques.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2014), contacted experts in the field and searched reference lists of retrieved studies. In previous versions of this review, we performed additional searches of MEDLINE, Embase and Current Contents. These searches were discontinued for this review update, as they consistently failed to identify any trials that were not shown in the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that compared maternal and fetal outcomes when fetal pulse oximetry was used in labour, (i) with or without concurrent use of conventional fetal surveillance, that is, cardiotocography (CTG), compared with using CTG alone or (ii) with or without concurrent use of both CTG and other method(s) of fetal surveillance, such as fetal electrocardiography (ECG) plus CTG.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two independent review authors performed data extraction. We sought additional information from the investigators of three of the reported trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven published trials: six comparing fetal pulse oximetry and CTG with CTG alone (or when fetal pulse oximetry values were blinded) and one comparing fetal pulse oximetry plus CTG with fetal ECG plus CTG. The published trials, with some unpublished data, were at high risk of bias in terms of the impractical nature of blinding participants and clinicians, as well as high risk or unclear risk of bias for outcome assessor for all but one report. Selection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias and other sources of bias were of low or unclear risk. The trials reported on a total of 8013 pregnancies. Differing entry criteria necessitated separate analyses, rather than meta-analysis of all trials.Systematic review of four trials from 34 weeks not requiring fetal blood sampling (FBS) prior to study entry showed no evidence of differences in the overall caesarean section rate between those monitored with fetal oximetry and those not monitored with fetal pulse oximetry or for whom the fetal pulse oximetry results were masked (average risk ratio (RR) 0.99 using random-effects, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.86 to 1.13, n = 4008, I² = 45%). There was evidence of a higher risk of caesarean section in the group with fetal oximetry plus CTG than in the group with fetal ECG plus CTG (one study, n = 180, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.29). Neonatal seizures and neonatal encephalopathy were rare in both groups. No studies reported details of long-term disability.There was evidence of a decrease in caesarean section for nonreassuring fetal status in the fetal pulse oximetry plus CTG group compared to the CTG group, gestation from 34 weeks (average RR (random-effects) 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.90, n = 4008, I² = 63%). There was no evidence of differences between groups in caesarean section for dystocia, although the overall incidence rates varied between the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of fetal pulse oximetry does not reduce overall caesarean section rates. One study found a higher caesarean section rate in the group monitored with fetal pulse oximetry plus CTG, compared with fetal ECG plus CTG. The data provide limited support for the use of fetal pulse oximetry when used in the presence of a nonreassuring CTG, to reduce caesarean section for nonreassuring fetal status. A better method than pulse oximetry is required to enhance the overall evaluation of fetal well-being in labour.

Fetal pulse oximetry for fetal assessment in labour

BACKGROUND

Pulse oximetry could contribute to the evaluation of fetal well-being during labour.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of fetal pulse oximetry with conventional surveillance techniques.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (November 2006), MEDLINE (1994 to November 2006), EMBASE (1994 to November 2006) and Current Contents (1994 to November 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that compared maternal and fetal outcomes when fetal pulse oximetry was used in labour, with or without concurrent use of conventional fetal surveillance, compared with using cardiotocography (CTG) alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two independent authors performed data extraction. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. We sought additional information from the investigators of three of the reported trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Five published trials comparing fetal pulse oximetry and CTG with CTG alone (or when fetal pulse oximetry values were blinded) were included. The published trials, with some unpublished data, reported on a total of 7424 pregnancies. Differing entry criteria necessitated separate analyses, rather than meta-analysis of all trials. Four trials reported no significant differences in the overall caesarean section rate between those monitored with fetal oximetry and those not monitored with fetal pulse oximetry or for whom the fetal pulse oximetry results were masked. Neonatal seizures and hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy were rare. No studies reported details of assessment of long-term disability. There was a statistically significant decrease in caesarean section for nonreassuring fetal status in the fetal pulse oximetry plus CTG group compared to the CTG group in two analyses: (i) gestation from 36 weeks with fetal blood sample (fetal blood sampling) not required prior to study entry (relative risk (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.99); and (ii) when fetal blood sampling was required prior to study entry (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.44). There was no statistically significant difference in caesarean section for dystocia when fetal pulse oximetry (fetal pulse oximetry) was added to CTG monitoring, compared with CTG monitoring alone, although the incidence rates varied between the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The data provide limited support for the use of fetal pulse oximetry when used in the presence of a nonreassuring CTG, to reduce caesarean section for nonreassuring fetal status. The addition of fetal pulse oximetry does not reduce overall caesarean section rates. A better method to evaluate fetal well-being in labour is required.