Amadori Roberta, Vaianella Elisabetta, Tosi Marco, Baronchelli Paola, Surico Daniela, Remorgida Valentino
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Maggiore della Carità, Novara, Italy.
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022 Oct;42(7):2753-2757. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2022.2109131. Epub 2022 Aug 11.
Our aim was to evaluate the intra- and inter-operator agreement in cardiotocography (CTG) traces analysis using the 2015 FIGO classification guidelines, and whether the educational background and the knowledge of anamnestic data can influence the interpretation of CTG traces. A retrospective interpretation of 73 intrapartum CTGs at time 0 (T0) for a first blind interpretation and at time 1 (T1) two months later with additional anamnestic pregnancy information was made by eight different operators (four obstetricians and four midwives with different years of work experience). The intra-observer agreement demonstrates that midwifes are more concordant than obstetricians with a mean of 77.05% versus a mean of 65.75%. There is moderate inter-observer agreement in classifying a CTG trace as 'normal'; on the contrary, there is no consensus on the 'suspect' and 'pathological' classification category.IMPACT STATEMENT Interpretation of intrapartum CTG is affected by significant subjective variables with relevant intra- and inter-observer lack of optimal agreement, especially in case of abnormal o pathologic findings. Clinical data seem to play a role in interpretation of suspicious and pathological traces while they do not affect the rate of agreement for normal traces. Midwives tend to be less influenced by anamnestic data in visual CTG interpretation. Instead, obstetricians tend to be more focussed on clinical data and clinical setting that, as a consequence, tend to have great impact on CTG trace interpretation. Cooperation among obstetricians and between obstetricians and midwives should be encouraged in order to optimise CTG reading and improve maternal and neonatal outcomes. Regarding the influence of clinical parameters in classification of intrapartum CTG traces, especially in case of abnormal CTG traces, it should be conceivable to improve medical skills in CTG blind interpretation and further investigate which clinical parameters are mainly related with an augmented risk of foetal asphyxia and adverse neonatal outcomes.
我们的目的是使用2015年FIGO分类指南评估产时胎心监护(CTG)曲线分析中的操作者内和操作者间的一致性,以及教育背景和病史数据知识是否会影响CTG曲线的解读。八位不同的操作者(四名产科医生和四名具有不同工作年限的助产士)对73例产时CTG在时间0(T0)进行了首次盲法解读,并在两个月后的时间1(T1)结合额外的妊娠病史信息进行了再次解读。观察者内一致性表明,助产士的一致性高于产科医生,平均为77.05%,而产科医生的平均一致性为65.75%。在将CTG曲线分类为“正常”方面,观察者间存在中度一致性;相反,在“可疑”和“病理”分类类别上没有达成共识。
产时CTG的解读受显著主观变量影响,操作者内和操作者间缺乏最佳一致性,尤其是在出现异常或病理结果的情况下。临床数据在可疑和病理曲线的解读中似乎发挥作用,但不影响正常曲线的一致性率。在CTG视觉解读中,助产士受病史数据的影响较小。相反,产科医生往往更关注临床数据和临床情况,因此往往对CTG曲线解读有很大影响。应鼓励产科医生之间以及产科医生与助产士之间的合作,以优化CTG解读并改善母婴结局。关于临床参数在产时CTG曲线分类中的影响,特别是在CTG曲线异常的情况下,应该可以提高CTG盲法解读的医疗技能,并进一步研究哪些临床参数主要与胎儿窒息风险增加和不良新生儿结局相关。