Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fetal Monitoring

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Monitoring Technologies in Acute Care Environments

  • 3034 Accesses

Abstract

The goal of peripartum fetal monitoring is improved neonatal outcomes, primarily neurological. Fetal monitoring may allow both obstetricians and anesthesiologists to provide more timely and specific intervention to the parturient and fetus, while ideally minimizing risks. Fetal monitoring technology has improved over the past 50 years, but classification and interpretation have lagged. It is hoped that increased attention to standardization of definitions, interpretation, and interventions, along with new emerging technology, will enhance electronic fetal monitoring’s effectiveness in assessment of fetal well-being and its contribution to better neonatal outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Quilligan EJ, Paul RH. Fetal monitoring: is it worth it? Obstet Gynecol. 1975;45:96–100.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Clark SL, Hankins GVD. Temporal and demographic trends in cerebral palsy: fact and fiction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:628–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Graham EM, Ruis KA, Hartman AL, Nothington FJ, Fox HE. A systemic review of the role of intrapartum hypoxia-ischemia in the causation of neonatal encephalopathy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:587–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen HY, Chauhan SP, Ananth CV, Vintzileos AM, Abuhamad AZ. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring and its relationship to neonatal and infant mortality in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:491.e1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Alfirevic Z, Devane D, Gyte GM. Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(3):CD006066.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Phelen JP, Korst LM, Martin GI. Application of criteria developed by the task force on neonatal encephalopathy and cerebral palsy to acutely asphyxiated neonates. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:824–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Thorgren-Jerneck K, Herbst A. Perinatal factors associated with cerebral palsy in children born in Sweden. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1499–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sureau C. Historical perspectives: forgotten past, unpredictable future. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;10:167–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hon EH. Apparatus for continuous monitoring of the fetal heart rate. Yale J Biol Med. 1960;32:397–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Uses and abuses of screening tests. Lancet. 2002;359:881–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grimes DA, Peipert JF. Electronic fetal monitoring as a public health screening program: the arithmetic of failure. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1397–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bernardes J, Ayres-de-Campos D. The persistent challenge of foetal heart rate monitoring. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;22:104–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 106: intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:192–202.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Costantine MM, Saade GR. The first cesarean: role of “fetal distress” diagnosis. Semin Perinatol. 2012;36:379–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Research Planning Workshop. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring: research guidelines for interpretation. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 1997;26:635–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Macones GA, Hankins GDV, Spong CY, Hauth J, Moore T. The 2008 National Institute of Child Hand Human Development workshop report on fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretations, and research guidelines. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:661–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 116: management of intrapartum fetal heart rate tracings. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1232–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Miller DA, Miller LA. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring: applying principles of patient safety. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:278–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Garite TJ, Simpson KR. Intrauterine resuscitation during labor. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;54:28–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Parer JT, Ikeda T. A framework for standardized management of intrapartum fetal heart rate patterns. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:26.e1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Parer JT, Hamilton EF. Comparison of 5 experts and computer analysis in rule-based fetal heart rate interpretation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:451.e1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Coletta J, Murphy E, Rubeo Z, Gyamfi-Bannerman C. The 5-tier system of assessing fetal heart rate tracings is superior to the 3-tier system in identifying fetal acidemia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:226.e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sadaka A, Furuhashi M, Minami H, Miyazaki K, Yoshida K, Ishikawa K. Observation on validity of the five-tier system for fetal heart rate pattern interpretation proposed by Japan Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011;24:1465–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Goodwin TM, Milner-Masterson L, Paul RH. Elimination of fetal scalp blood sampling on a large clinical service. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;83:971–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. East CE, Leader LR, Sheehan P, Henshall NE, Colditz PB. Intrapartum fetal scalp lactate sampling for fetal assessment in the presence of a non-reassuring fetal heart rate trace. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(3):CD006174.

    Google Scholar 

  26. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice. ACOG Committee opinion number 258, September 2001: fetal pulse oximetry. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:523–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Stiller R, von Mering R, König V, Huch A, Huch R. How well does reflectance pulse oximetry reflect intrapartum fetal acidosis? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:1351–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wiberg-Itzel E, Lipponer C, Norman M, Herbst A, Prebensen D, Hansson A, et al. Determination of pH or lactate in fetal scalp blood in management of intrapartum fetal distress: randomised controlled multicentre trial. BMJ. 2008;336:1284–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Bloom SL, Spong CY, Thom E, Varner MW, Rouse DJ, Weininger S, et al. Fetal pulse oximetry and cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2195–202.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Lilja H, Greene KR, Karlsson K, Rosen KG. ST waveform changes of the fetal electrocardiogram during labor: a clinical study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985;92:611–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Westgate J, Harris M, Curnow JS, Greene KR. Plymouth randomized trial of cardiotocogram only versus ST waveform plus cardiotocogram for intrapartum monitoring in 2400 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;169:1151–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Amer-Wahlin I, Hellsten C, Noren H, Hagberg H, Herbst A, Kjellmer I, et al. Cardiotocography only versus cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram for intrapartum fetal monitoring: a Swedish randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2001;358:534–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Noren H, Amer-Wahlin I, Hagberg H, Herbst A, Kjellmer I, Marsal K, et al. Fetal electrocardiography in labor and neonatal outcome: data from the Swedish randomized controlled trial on intrapartum fetal monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:183–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Westerhuis ME, Visser GH, Moons KG, van Beek E, Benders MJ, Bijvoet SM, et al. Cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram compared with cardiotocography only for intrapartum monitoring: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:1173–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Noren H, Carlsson A. Reduced prevalence of metabolic acidosis at birth: an analysis of established STAN usage in the total population of deliveries in a Swedish district hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202:546.e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Potti S, Berghella V. ST waveform analysis versus cardiotocography along for intrapartum fetal monitoring: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am J Perinatol. 2012;29:657–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Yli BM, Kessler J, Eikeland T, Hustad BL, Dragnes W, Henriksen T. What is the gold standard for intrapartum fetal monitoring? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91:1011–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. American College of Nurse Midwives. Intermittent auscultation for intrapartum fetal heart rate surveillance. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010;55:397–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Obstetric Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, VUH 4202, Nashville, TN, 37205-7580, USA

    Matthew V. Buck MD & Michael G. Richardson MD

Authors
  1. Matthew V. Buck MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael G. Richardson MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael G. Richardson MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Anesthesiology, Surgery, and Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

    Jesse M. Ehrenfeld

  2. Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA

    Maxime Cannesson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Buck, M.V., Richardson, M.G. (2014). Fetal Monitoring. In: Ehrenfeld, J., Cannesson, M. (eds) Monitoring Technologies in Acute Care Environments. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8557-5_42

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8557-5_42

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8556-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-8557-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation