4.3 Article

Neonatal outcome and delivery mode in labors with repetitive fetal scalp blood sampling

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.11.012

Keywords

Fetal monitoring; Cardiotocography; Metabolic acidosis; Fetal distress; Fetal blood sampling

Funding

  1. Signhild Engkvists Stiftelse, Stockholm County Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate if repeat (>= 3) fetal scalp blood sampling (FBS) is associated with increased risk of caesarean delivery and worse neonatal outcome than occasional (1-2) FBS. Study design: Prospective cohort study of women undergoing intrapartum FBS at Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. FBS with lactate analysis was performed if the attending doctor found the cardiotocography (CTG) tracing suspicious or abnormal. Lactate concentration was measured bedside. As a routine in all deliveries, acid-base analyses were performed on umbilical artery and vein blood immediately after delivery. Main outcome measures were metabolic acidemia in umbilical artery at delivery, Apgar score <7 at 5 min and caesarean delivery. Results: During the study period there were 2134 FBSs performed on 1070 laboring women with a median of two samplings (range 1-8). There were no differences in Apgar score <7 at 5 min or metabolic acidemia in umbilical artery blood at birth between labors with 1-2 PBS and >= 3 FBS. Among women who underwent 1-2 FBS, 23% had a caesarean delivery as compared with 42% of those having >= 3 FBS. After adjustment for confounders, repeat PBS remained an independent risk factor for caesarean delivery (adj OR 2.05; 95%C.I 1.5-2.8). Conclusion: Fetal monitoring with repetitive FBS (>= 3) during labors with CTG changes is safe for the baby, but the rate of caesarean delivery is doubled as compared to labors where 1-2 PBS are needed. Still, more than 50% of women with repetitive PBS will be delivered vaginally, and 1/3 of these spontaneously. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available