Quality of fetal heart rate monitoring with transabdominal fetal ECG during maternal movement in labor: A prospective study

被引:3
|
作者
Reis-de-Carvalho, Catarina [1 ,2 ]
Nogueira, Paulo [2 ,3 ]
Ayres-de-Campos, Diogo [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Santa Maria Univ Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Med Sch, Lisbon, Portugal
[2] Santa Maria Univ Hosp, Med Sch, Lisbon, Portugal
[3] Inst Prevent Med & Publ Hlth, Biomath Lab, Lisbon, Portugal
关键词
cardiotocography; fetal electrocardiogram; fetal heart rate; intrapartum; monitoring; transabdominal ECG; BODY-MASS INDEX; ULTRASOUND; RELIABILITY; ACCURACY;
D O I
10.1111/aogs.14434
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Introduction Transabdominal electrocardiographic (TAfECG) acquisition of fetal heart rate (FHR) signals has recently been introduced into leading commercial cardiotocographic (CTG) monitors. Continuous wireless transmission of signals has raised the possibility of the technology being used during maternal mobilization in labor. This study aims to evaluate signal quality and accuracy of TAfECG acquisition of FHR signals during static and active maternal positions in labor when compared with Doppler signals and with the gold-standard method of fetal scalp electrode (FSE). Material and Methods A total of 76 women with singleton term pregnancies in the active first stage of labor had simultaneously acquired FHR with TAfECG, Doppler, and FSE. Participants were asked to complete a supervised mobilization scheme, comprising five sequential 10-min periods of lying down, standing, sitting, walking, and rocking on the birthing ball. The three FHR signals were compared, defining signal loss as the percentage of signals under 20 bpm or exceeding 250 bpm and accuracy as the difference with FSE values. Computer analysis was used to quantify variability, accelerations, and decelerations. Static labor positions (lying down, standing, and sitting) were compared with active labor positions (walking and rocking on the birthing ball). Results Average signal loss was 5.3% with TAfECG (3.2% in static and 7.4% in active positions) and 15.5% with Doppler (8.3% in static and 30.7% in active positions). Average accuracy was 3.5 bpm with TAfECG (1.9 bpm in static and 5.04 bpm in active positions) and 13.9 bpm with Doppler (3.2 bpm in static and 24.7 bpm in active positions). Average variability was similar with TAfECG and FSE in static positions but significantly higher with TAfECG in active positions (23.6 vs. 13.5 bpm, p < 0.001). Conclusions In static labor positions, TAfECG provides a low signal loss, similar to that obtained with FSE, and a good signal accuracy, so the technique can be considered reliable when the mother is lying down, standing, or sitting. During maternal movement, TAfECG causes an artificial increase in FHR variability, which can cause false reassurance regarding fetal oxygenation. Doppler signals are unreliable during maternal movements.
引用
收藏
页码:1269 / 1275
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Fetal heart rate and maternal heart rate confusion during intrapartum monitoring: comparison of transabdominal fetal ECG and Doppler telemetry
    Signaroldi, Maria
    Mastroianni, Cristina
    Rosti, Eleonora
    Loi, Giorgia
    Di Francesco, Stefania
    Ferrazzi, Enrico
    Stampalija, Tamara
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2011, 204 : S261 - S262
  • [2] Antenatal transabdominal fetal ECG for heart rate monitoring: Quality assessment of a renewed monitoring technique
    Graatsma, Elisabeth M.
    Mulder, Eduard J. H.
    Ser, Gerard H. A.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2007, 197 (06) : S181 - S181
  • [3] Simultaneous monitoring of maternal and fetal heart rate variability during labor in relation with fetal gender
    Goncalves, Hernani
    Fernandes, Diana
    Pinto, Paula
    Ayres-de-Campos, Diogo
    Bernardes, Joao
    [J]. DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOBIOLOGY, 2017, 59 (07) : 832 - 839
  • [4] FETAL HEART-RATE MONITORING DURING LABOR
    SCHIFRIN, BS
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1972, 222 (02): : 196 - &
  • [5] Monitoring the Fetal Heart Rate Variability during Labor
    Moslem, B.
    Mohydeen, A.
    Bazzi, O.
    [J]. 2015 37TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY SOCIETY (EMBC), 2015, : 5846 - 5850
  • [6] Avoiding Confusion of Maternal Heart Rate With Fetal Heart Rate During Labor
    Simpson, Kathleen Rice
    [J]. MCN-THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-CHILD NURSING, 2011, 36 (04) : 272 - 272
  • [7] Toward the improvement in fetal monitoring during labor with the inclusion of maternal heart rate analysis
    Goncalves, Hernani
    Pinto, Paula
    Silva, Manuela
    Ayres-de-Campos, Diogo
    Bernardes, Joao
    [J]. MEDICAL & BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING & COMPUTING, 2016, 54 (04) : 691 - 699
  • [8] Toward the improvement in fetal monitoring during labor with the inclusion of maternal heart rate analysis
    Hernâni Gonçalves
    Paula Pinto
    Manuela Silva
    Diogo Ayres-de-Campos
    João Bernardes
    [J]. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, 2016, 54 : 691 - 699
  • [9] Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring in Labor
    不详
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MIDWIFERY & WOMENS HEALTH, 2021, 66 (02) : 285 - 286
  • [10] FETAL HEART-RATE MONITORING DURING BREECH LABOR
    WHEELER, T
    GREENE, K
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1975, 82 (03): : 208 - 214