Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jan 26;1:CD005122. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005122.pub5.

Cardiotocography versus intermittent auscultation of fetal heart on admission to labour ward for assessment of fetal wellbeing.

Author information

1
School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland.
2
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin, Ireland, 2.
3
Coombe Women & Infants University Hospital, Dolphin's Barn, Dublin 8, Ireland.
4
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, The University of York, York, Y010 5DD, UK.
5
Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, Department of Women's and Children's Health, The University of Liverpool, First Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Crown Street, Liverpool, UK, L8 7SS.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The admission cardiotocograph (CTG) is a commonly used screening test consisting of a short (usually 20 minutes) recording of the fetal heart rate (FHR) and uterine activity performed on the mother's admission to the labour ward. This is an update of a review published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES:

To compare the effects of admission cardiotocography with intermittent auscultation of the FHR on maternal and infant outcomes for pregnant women without risk factors on their admission to the labour ward.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register to 30 November 2016 and we planned to review the reference list of retrieved papers

SELECTION CRITERIA:

All randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing admission CTG with intermittent auscultation of the FHR for pregnant women between 37 and 42 completed weeks of pregnancy and considered to be at low risk of intrapartum fetal hypoxia and of developing complications during labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and quality, and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS:

We included no new trials in this update. We included four trials involving more than 13,000 women which were conducted in the UK and Ireland and included women in labour. Three trials were funded by the hospitals where the trials took place and one trial was funded by the Scottish government. No declarations of interest were made in two trials; the remaining two trials did not mention declarations of interest. Overall, the studies were assessed as low risk of bias. Results reported in the 2012 review remain unchanged.Although not statistically significant using a strict P < 0.05 criterion, data were consistent with women allocated to admission CTG having, on average, a higher probability of an increase in incidence of caesarean section than women allocated to intermittent auscultation (risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.44, 4 trials, 11,338 women, I² = 0%, moderate quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the average treatment effect across included trials between women allocated to admission CTG and women allocated to intermittent auscultation in instrumental vaginal birth (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.27, 4 trials, 11,338 women, I² = 38%, low quality evidence) and perinatal mortality rate (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.47, 4 trials, 11,339 infants, I² = 0%, moderate quality evidence).Women allocated to admission CTG had, on average, higher rates of continuous electronic fetal monitoring during labour (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.48, 3 trials, 10,753 women, I² = 79%, low quality evidence) and fetal blood sampling (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.45, 3 trials, 10,757 women, I² = 0%) than women allocated to intermittent auscultation. There were no differences between groups in other secondary outcome measures including incidence and severity of hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (incidence only reported) (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.90; 2367 infants; 1 trial; very low quality evidence) and incidence of seizures in the neonatal period (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.61; 8056 infants; 1 trial; low quality evidence). There were no data reported for severe neurodevelopmental disability assessed at greater than, or equal to, 12 months of age.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Contrary to continued use in some clinical areas, we found no evidence of benefit for the use of the admission CTG for low-risk women on admission in labour.Furthermore, the probability is that admission CTG increases the caesarean section rate by approximately 20%. The data lacked power to detect possible important differences in perinatal mortality. However, it is unlikely that any trial, or meta-analysis, will be adequately powered to detect such differences. The findings of this review support recommendations that the admission CTG not be used for women who are low risk on admission in labour. Women should be informed that admission CTG is likely associated with an increase in the incidence of caesarean section without evidence of benefit.Evidence quality ranged from moderate to very low, with downgrading decisions based on imprecision, inconsistency and a lack of blinding for participants and personnel. All four included trials were conducted in developed Western European countries. One additional study is ongoing.The usefulness of the findings of this review for developing countries will depend on FHR monitoring practices. However, an absence of benefit and likely harm associated with admission CTG will have relevance for countries where questions are being asked about the role of the admission CTG.Future studies evaluating the effects of the admission CTG should consider including women admitted with signs of labour and before a formal diagnosis of labour. This would include a cohort of women currently having admission CTGs and not included in current trials.

PMID:
28125772
PMCID:
PMC6464914
DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD005122.pub5
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center