Liang Yiheng, Li Yun, Huang Chunhua, Li Xiaohong, Cai Qiaoqing, Peng Jiying, Fan Shangrong
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen 518036, China.
Department of Pathology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen 518036, China.
Matern Fetal Med. 2022 Mar 10;4(2):121-126. doi: 10.1097/FM9.0000000000000145. eCollection 2022 Apr.
To investigate the safety and efficacy of internal electronic fetal heart rate (FHR) monitoring during labor.
This was a retrospective case-control study, which was an analysis of monitoring FHR with a fetal scalp electrode or a Doppler probe (94 pregnant women per group). In the internal monitoring group, when the opening of the uterine orifice was ≥3 cm, the fetal scalp electrode was placed after natural or artificial rupture of the membrane. FHR was simultaneously monitored using a Doppler probe. In the external monitoring group, continuous FHR monitoring was performed using an ultrasound Doppler transducer fixed on the maternal abdomen. The toco transducer was used to record uterine contractions. Pathological examination of the placenta was performed prospectively in 49 and 48 cases in the internal electronic FHR monitoring group and control group, respectively. Maternal-infant outcomes (e.g. fever, puerperal infection, puerperal morbidity, delivery mode, Apgar score, and scalp injury) were recorded. Umbilical artery blood was extracted for blood gas analysis. Differences between the two groups were compared using the paired -test, test, Yates corrected test or Fisher exact test.
Non-statistically significant differences between the internal and external monitoring groups were observed in the incidence of neonatal acidosis (1/94 (1.06%) 3/94 (3.19%), respectively; = 0.255, = 0.613), cesarean section/operative vaginal delivery (8/94 (8.51%) 15/94 (15.96%), respectively; = 2.427, = 0.181), fever during labor (18/94 (19.15%) 15/94 (15.96%), respectively; = 0.331, = 0.565), puerperal morbidity (2/94 (2.13%) 3/94 (3.19%), respectively; = 0.000, 1.000), chorioamnionitis (9/49 (18.37%) vs. 7/48 (14.58%), respectively; = 0.252, 0.616), and neonatal asphyxia (0/94 (0.00%) 1/94 (1.06%), respectively; = 0.000, 1.000). There were no puerperal infections, neonatal scalp injuries, or scalp abscesses found in either group. Using the internal monitoring value as reference, the incidence of FHR false deceleration in external FHR monitoring was 20.21% (19/94 women).
Internal FHR monitoring during labor does not increase the incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes. External monitoring was associated with FHR false decelerations.
探讨产时胎儿心率(FHR)内部电子监测的安全性和有效性。
这是一项回顾性病例对照研究,分析了使用胎儿头皮电极或多普勒探头监测FHR(每组94名孕妇)。在内部监测组中,当宫口开大≥3 cm时,在自然或人工破膜后放置胎儿头皮电极。同时使用多普勒探头监测FHR。在外部监测组中,使用固定在孕妇腹部的超声多普勒换能器进行连续FHR监测。宫缩传感器用于记录子宫收缩情况。内部电子FHR监测组和对照组分别对49例和48例胎盘进行前瞻性病理检查。记录母婴结局(如发热、产褥感染、产褥病率、分娩方式、阿氏评分和头皮损伤)。抽取脐动脉血进行血气分析。两组间差异采用配对t检验、χ²检验、Yates校正χ²检验或Fisher精确检验进行比较。
内部和外部监测组在新生儿酸中毒发生率(分别为1/94(1.06%)对3/94(3.19%);χ² = 0.255,P = 0.613)、剖宫产/阴道助产率(分别为8/94(8.51%)对15/94(15.96%);χ² = 2.427,P = 0.181)、产时发热发生率(分别为18/94(19.15%)对15/94(15.96%);χ² = 0.331,P = 0.565)、产褥病率(分别为2/94(2.13%)对3/94(3.19%);χ² = 0.000,P = 1.000)、绒毛膜羊膜炎发生率(分别为9/49(18.37%)对7/48(14.58%);χ² = 0.252,P = 0.616)以及新生儿窒息发生率(分别为0/94(0.00%)对1/94(1.06%);χ² = 0.000,P = 1.000)方面未观察到统计学上的显著差异。两组均未发现产褥感染、新生儿头皮损伤或头皮脓肿。以内部监测值为参照,外部FHR监测中FHR假减速的发生率为20.21%(19/94名妇女)。
产时胎儿心率内部监测不会增加围产儿不良结局的发生率。外部监测与FHR假减速相关。