TY - JOUR
T1 - Use of fetal pulse oximetry among high-risk women in labor: A randomized clinical trial
AU - Klauser, C.K.
AU - Christensen, E.E.
AU - Chauhan, S.P.
AU - Bufkin, L.
AU - Magann, Pat
AU - Bofill, J.A.
AU - Morrison, J.C.
PY - 2005
Y1 - 2005
N2 - The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical role of fetal pulse oximetry to reduce cesarean delivery for a nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing.Study designSingletons ≥28 weeks were randomized to fetal pulse oximetry plus electronic fetal heart rate monitoring (monitoring+fetal pulse oximetry) or monitoring alone.ResultsOverall, 360 women in labor were recruited: 150 cases with monitoring+fetal pulse oximetry and 177 cases with monitoring alone were analyzed. Most demographic, obstetric, and neonatal characteristics were similar. Specifically, the gestational age, cervical dilation, and station of the fetal head were not differential factors. In addition, cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing was not different between the group with monitoring+fetal pulse oximetry (29%) and the group with monitoring alone (32%; relative risk, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75, 1.22). Likewise, cesarean delivery for arrest disorder was similar between the group with monitoring+fetal pulse oximetry (22%) and the group with monitoring alone (23%; relative risk, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.79, 1.44). However, the decision-to-incision time was shorter for the group with monitoring+fetal pulse oximetry (17.8 ± 8.2 min) than for the group with monitoring alone (27.7 ± 13.9 min; P <.0001).ConclusionThe use of fetal pulse oximetry with electronic fetal heart rate monitoring does not decrease the rate of cesarean delivery, although it does alter the decision-to-incision time.
AB - The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical role of fetal pulse oximetry to reduce cesarean delivery for a nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing.Study designSingletons ≥28 weeks were randomized to fetal pulse oximetry plus electronic fetal heart rate monitoring (monitoring+fetal pulse oximetry) or monitoring alone.ResultsOverall, 360 women in labor were recruited: 150 cases with monitoring+fetal pulse oximetry and 177 cases with monitoring alone were analyzed. Most demographic, obstetric, and neonatal characteristics were similar. Specifically, the gestational age, cervical dilation, and station of the fetal head were not differential factors. In addition, cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing was not different between the group with monitoring+fetal pulse oximetry (29%) and the group with monitoring alone (32%; relative risk, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75, 1.22). Likewise, cesarean delivery for arrest disorder was similar between the group with monitoring+fetal pulse oximetry (22%) and the group with monitoring alone (23%; relative risk, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.79, 1.44). However, the decision-to-incision time was shorter for the group with monitoring+fetal pulse oximetry (17.8 ± 8.2 min) than for the group with monitoring alone (27.7 ± 13.9 min; P <.0001).ConclusionThe use of fetal pulse oximetry with electronic fetal heart rate monitoring does not decrease the rate of cesarean delivery, although it does alter the decision-to-incision time.
U2 - 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.047
DO - 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.047
M3 - Article
C2 - 15970816
SN - 0002-9378
VL - 192
SP - 1810
EP - 1819
JO - American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
JF - American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
IS - 6
ER -