Thacker S B, Stroup D, Chang M
Epidemiology Program Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001(2):CD000063. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000063.
Electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) is used in the management of labor and delivery in nearly three of four pregnancies in the United States. The apparent contradiction between the widespread use of EFM and expert recommendations to limit routine use indicates that a reassessment of this practice is warranted.
To compare the efficacy and safety of routine continuous EFM during labor with intermittent auscultation, using the results of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
We identified RCTs by searching MEDLINE and the register maintained by the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, and by contacting experts, and reviewing published references. Date of last search: January 2001.
Randomized controlled trials.
Data were abstracted by one of us, and their accuracy was confirmed independently by a second person. A single reviewer assessed study quality based on criteria developed by others for RCTs. Data reported from similar studies were used to calculate a combined risk estimate for each of eight outcomes.
Our search identified 13 published RCTs addressing the efficacy and safety of EFM; no unpublished studies were found. Four trials that did not fulfil our selection criteria were excluded. The remaining nine trials included 18,561 pregnant women and their 18,695 infants in both high- and low-risk pregnancies from seven clinical centers in the United States, Europe, and Australia. Overall, a statistically significant decrease was associated with routine EFM for neonatal seizures (relative risk (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.82). The protective effect for neonatal seizures was only evident in studies with high-quality scores. No significant differences were observed in 1-minute Apgar scores below four or seven, rate of admissions to neonatal intensive care units, perinatal deaths or cerebral palsy. An increase associated with the use of EFM was observed in the rate of cesarean delivery (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.23-1.61) and operative vaginal delivery (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.11-1.30).
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The only clinically significant benefit from the use of routine continuous EFM was in the reduction of neonatal seizures. In view of the increase in cesarean and operative vaginal delivery, the long-term benefit of this reduction must be evaluated in the decision reached jointly by the pregnant woman and her clinician to use continuous EFM or intermittent auscultation during labor.
在美国,近四分之三的妊娠分娩管理中会使用电子胎儿监护(EFM)。EFM广泛应用与专家建议限制其常规使用之间存在明显矛盾,这表明有必要重新评估这种做法。
利用已发表的随机对照试验(RCT)结果,比较分娩期间常规连续EFM与间歇性听诊的有效性和安全性。
我们通过检索MEDLINE和Cochrane妊娠与分娩小组维护的登记册、联系专家以及查阅已发表的参考文献来识别RCT。最后检索日期:2001年1月。
随机对照试验。
数据由我们其中一人提取,另一人独立确认其准确性。一名审阅者根据他人为RCT制定的标准评估研究质量。来自相似研究报告的数据用于计算八项结局中每项的合并风险估计值。
我们的检索识别出13项已发表的关于EFM有效性和安全性的RCT;未发现未发表的研究。排除了四项不符合我们选择标准的试验。其余九项试验纳入了来自美国、欧洲和澳大利亚七个临床中心的18561名孕妇及其18695名婴儿,涵盖高危和低危妊娠。总体而言,常规EFM与新生儿惊厥发生率在统计学上显著降低相关(相对风险(RR)0.51,95%置信区间(CI)0.32 - 0.82)。对新生儿惊厥的保护作用仅在高质量评分的研究中明显。在1分钟阿氏评分低于4分或7分、新生儿重症监护病房收治率、围产期死亡或脑瘫方面未观察到显著差异。观察到使用EFM会使剖宫产率(RR 1.41,95% CI 1.23 - 1.61)和阴道助产率(RR 1.20,95% CI 1.11 - 1.30)增加。
常规连续使用EFM唯一具有临床意义的益处是降低新生儿惊厥发生率。鉴于剖宫产和阴道助产率增加,在孕妇及其临床医生共同决定分娩期间使用连续EFM还是间歇性听诊时,必须评估这种降低带来的长期益处。