BMJ 2001;322:1457-1462 ( 16 June )

Papers

Randomised controlled trial of cardiotocography versus Doppler auscultation of fetal heart at admission in labour in low risk obstetric population

Editorial by Goddard

Gary Mires, senior lecturer, ^a Fiona Williams, lecturer, ^b Peter Howie, professor. ^a

^a Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Tayside DD1 9SY, ^b Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School

Correspondence to: G Mires g.j.mires{at}dundee.ac.uk

Objective: To compare the effect of admission cardiotocography and Doppler auscultation of the fetal heart on neonatal outcome and levels of obstetric intervention in a low risk obstetric population.
Design: Randomised controlled trial.
Setting: Obstetric unit of teaching hospital
Participants: Pregnant women who had no obstetric complications that warranted continuous monitoring of fetal heart rate in labour.
Intervention: Women were randomised to receive either cardiotocography or Doppler auscultation of the fetal heart when they were admitted in spontaneous uncomplicated labour.
Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was umbilical arterial metabolic acidosis. Secondary outcome measures included other measures of condition at birth and obstetric intervention.
Results: There were no significant differences in the incidence of metabolic acidosis or any other measure of neonatal outcome among women who remained at low risk when they were admitted in labour. However, compared with women who received Doppler auscultation, women who had admission cardiotocography were significantly more likely to have continuous fetal heart rate monitoring in labour (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.26 to 1.76), augmentation of labour (1.26, 1.02 to 1.56), epidural analgesia (1.33, 1.10 to 1.61), and operative delivery (1.36, 1.12 to 1.65).
Conclusions: Compared with Doppler auscultation of the fetal heart, admission cardiotocography does not benefit neonatal outcome in low risk women. Its use results in increased obstetric intervention, including operative delivery.

What is already known on this topic The admission cardiotocogram is a short recording of the fetal heart rate immediately after admission to the labour ward Opinion varies about its value in identifying a potentially compromised fetus In low risk women, the incidence of intrapartum fetal compromise is low What this study adds Compared with Doppler auscultation of the fetal heart, admission cardiotocography has no benefit on neonatal outcome in low risk women Admission cardiotocography results in increased obstetric intervention, including operative delivery

---

© BMJ 2001
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

Cardiotocography v Doppler auscultation

Jane Thomas, Shantini Paranjothy, Tony Kelly, Josephine Kavanagh, Simon Grant, Iain Chalmers, Gordon C S Smith, I P Stuart, Ros Goddard, G J Mires, F L R Williams, and P W Howie
BMJ 2002 324: 482. [Extract] [Full Text]

Admission cardiotography increases obstetric intervention
BMJ 2001 322: 0. [Full Text]

Electronic fetal monitoring

Ros Goddard
BMJ 2001 322: 1436-1437. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Thomas, J., Paranjothy, S., Kelly, T., Kavanagh, J., Grant, S., Chalmers, I., Smith, G. C S, Stuart, I P, Goddard, R., Mires, G J, Williams, F L R, Howie, P W (2002). Cardiotocography v Doppler auscultation. BMJ 324: 482-482 [Full text]  
• (2001). Is Intensive Fetal Monitoring During Labor Indicated?. JWatch General 2001: 4-4 [Full text]  
• Goddard, R. (2001). Electronic fetal monitoring. BMJ 322: 1436-1437 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

What do women think?

Hannah Hulme Hunter
bmj.com, 15 Jun 2001 [Full text]

Importance of controlling for potential confounding

Deirdre J Murphy
bmj.com, 16 Jun 2001 [Full text]

Estimating the effects of health care interventions

Iain Chalmers
bmj.com, 16 Jun 2001 [Full text]

Is proper statistics a religion?

Izhar Ben-Shlomo
bmj.com, 16 Jun 2001 [Full text]

Statistical or clinical significance?

Simon Grant
bmj.com, 18 Jun 2001 [Full text]

Failure to achieve expected sample size should not prevent publication of randomised trials

Francesco Torella
bmj.com, 20 Jun 2001 [Full text]

Original power calculations may be flawed

Paul Little
bmj.com, 25 Jun 2001 [Full text]

How should we interpret randomized controlled trials (RCT), which compare unreproducible methods?

J Bernades, et al.
bmj.com, 27 Jun 2001 [Full text]

Reducing obstetric morbidity in low risk women

Lesley Dolan
bmj.com, 28 Jun 2001 [Full text]

Doppler auscultation standard not evidence based

Jane Grant
bmj.com, 29 Jun 2001 [Full text]

Unblinded studies and source of bias

Alison Macarthur
bmj.com, 3 Jul 2001 [Full text]

Changing risks: what about the neonate?

W M Clow
bmj.com, 11 Jul 2001 [Full text]

Questions about hypoxia and acidosis

Shane Higgins
bmj.com, 17 Jul 2001 [Full text]

Electronic Fetal Monitoring

Jane Thomas
bmj.com, 19 Jul 2001 [Full text]

Abnormal neonatal neurobehaviour may be a more sensitive indicator of intrapartum asphyxia than cord

Margaret Sheridan-Pereira, et al.
bmj.com, 23 Jul 2001 [Full text]

Recruitment for clinical trial:the key to success

Paola Albertazzi
bmj.com, 13 Aug 2001 [Full text]