Standard External Doppler Fetal Heart Tracings versus External Fetal Electrocardiogram in Very Preterm Gestation: A Pilot Study
Abstract Introduction Very preterm babies can be difficult to monitor using standard external Doppler fetal heart tracings (eFHR). External fetal electrocardiogram (fECG) is a potential alternative. Methods This was a prospective observational pilot study of hospitalized pa...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
2016-10-01
|
| Series: | American Journal of Perinatology Reports |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0036-1592413 |
| Summary: | Abstract
Introduction Very preterm babies can be difficult to monitor using standard external Doppler fetal heart tracings (eFHR). External fetal electrocardiogram (fECG) is a potential alternative.
Methods This was a prospective observational pilot study of hospitalized patients at 24 to 28 weeks' gestation. A total of 30 women were traced for up to 2 hours using eFHR followed by up to 2 hours using fECG. The percentage of time the fetal heart rate was traced during the 2-hour window for each modality was calculated. Differences of ≥ 60, ≥ 80, and ≥ 90% total time traced were compared between modalities using McNemar's test. Differences were also assessed for each method between nonobese (body mass index [BMI] < 30 kg/m2) and obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) women using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests.
Results Superior performance was found with eFHR at ≥ 60% (93.3 vs. 46.7%, p < 0.001), ≥ 80% (80.0 vs. 30.0%, p < 0.001), and ≥ 90% (60.0 vs. 23.3%, p < 0.01) total time traced. There was a statistically significant finding favoring nonobese women at ≥ 80% total time traced using fECG (7.1 vs. 50.0%, p = 0.017).
Conclusion With current technology fECG performance in very preterm gestation was worse than conventional eFHR, although fECG may have a role in nonobese patients. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2157-6998 2157-7005 |