Is fetal CTG a reliable indicator of fetal distress? A prospective study on relationship between CTG suspected fetal distress and immediate postpartum umbilical cord blood pH.

Kanika Gupta 1, Arpana Haritwal 1 * , Bela Makhija 1, Ruchi Bhandari 1
More Detail
1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Max Smart Superspeciality Hospital, Saket, New Delhi, India
* Corresponding Author
J CLIN MED KAZ, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp. 57-64. https://doi.org/10.23950/jcmk/11683
OPEN ACCESS 1131 Views 1430 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Introduction
Perinatal asphyxia is one of the major causes of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Fetal Cardiotocography (CTG) has been used for long to predict fetal asphyxia. Despite its popularity, it has not been proved to be an ideal tool for monitoring as, although a normal trace is indicative of a normal acid-base status at birth, in about 98% of cases, an abnormal trace has a low positive predictive value in term of fetal acidosis (pH less than 7.25) .An undisputed evidence of perinatal asphyxia is metabolic acidosis on arterial cord blood or very early neonatal samples: pH< 7 and base deficit >12 mmol/L
Aim
To see the correlation between suspicious/pathological CTG and umbilical cord blood pH at birth in term pregnancies.
Material and methods
This was a hospital based prospective randomized observational study over a period of 1 year. It was conducted on 165 pregnant women with singleton term pregnancy admitted to labour ward for delivery and having suspicious / pathological CTG trace or meconium stained liquor with normal CTG trace. Immediately after the birth of the neonate, umbilical cord was clamped, cut and umbilical artery cord blood was collected in a pre - heparinized syringe and sent for pH analysis. Cord blood pH of less than 7.2 was interpreted as acidosis.
Results
The number of acidotic cases (as determined by cord blood pH less than 7.2) was 2(5.6%) in normal traces whereas 34 cases (94.4%) of normal traces were non acidotic. In the suspicious traces, 2 cases (3.2%) were acidotic and 59 cases (96.8%) were non acidotic. In the pathological category, 13 cases (19.1%) were acidotic and 55 cases (80.9%) were non acidotic. There was no significant association of CTG category with cord blood pH, acidosis, pO2 or pCo2 values but that with presence of MSL and grade of MSL was statistically significant.
Conclusion
Abnormal CTG while being a good predictor of the presence of MSL and also the grade of MSL, is a poor predictor of the presence of fetal acidosis and neonatal status after birth. Fetal monitoring using cardiotocography was associated with considerable false positive results. Thus, using fetal heart rate abnormalities alone as a measure of diagnosis of fetal distress during labour is a contributing factor of increasing rate of cesarean sections.

CITATION

Gupta K, Haritwal A, Makhija B, Bhandari R. Is fetal CTG a reliable indicator of fetal distress? A prospective study on relationship between CTG suspected fetal distress and immediate postpartum umbilical cord blood pH.. J CLIN MED KAZ. 2022;19(1):57-64. https://doi.org/10.23950/jcmk/11683

REFERENCES

  • Tasnim N, Mahmud G, Akram S. Predictive accuracy of intrapartum cardiotocography in terms of fetal acid base status at birth. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2009;19(10):632-5. https://doi.org/10.2009/JCPSP.632635
  • Mires G, Williams F, Howie P. Randomised controlled trial of cardiotocography versus Doppler auscultation of fetal heart at admission in labour in low risk obstetric population. BMJ. 2001;322(7300):1457-60; discussion 1460-2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7300.1457
  • Dellinger EH, Boehm FH, Crane MM. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring: early neonatal outcomes associated with normal rate, fetal stress, and fetal distress. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182(1 Pt 1):214-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(00)70515-1
  • Tuffnell D, Haw WL, Wilkinson K. How long does a fetal scalp blood sample take? BJOG. 2006;113(3):332-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00859.x
  • Wiberg-Itzel E, Lipponer C, Norman M, Herbst A, Prebensen D, Hansson A, Bryngelsson AL, Christoffersson M, Sennström M, Wennerholm UB, Nordström L. Determination of pH or lactate in fetal scalp blood in management of intrapartum fetal distress: randomised controlled multicentre trial. BMJ. 2008;336(7656):1284-7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39553.406991.25
  • Westerhuis ME, Moons KG, van Beek E, Bijvoet SM, Drogtrop AP, van Geijn HP, van Lith JM, Mol BW, Nijhuis JG, Oei SG, Porath MM, Rijnders RJ, Schuitemaker NW, van der Tweel I, Visser GH, Willekes C, Kwee A. A randomised clinical trial on cardiotocography plus fetal blood sampling versus cardiotocography plus ST-analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram (STAN) for intrapartum monitoring. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2007;7:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-7-13
  • MacLennan A. A template for defining a causal relation between acute intrapartum events and cerebral palsy: international consensus statement. BMJ. 1999;319(7216):1054-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7216.1054
  • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Intrapartum Care for healthy women and babies Clinical Guideline CG190; 2017.
  • Saling E. Amnioscopy and foetal blood sampling: observations on foetal acidosis. Arch Dis Child. 1966;41(219):472-6. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.41.219.472
  • Anne Lisbeth Hoffmann, Jesper Ø. Hjortdal, Niels Jørgen Secher, Birgitte Weile, The relationship between Apgar score, umbilical artery pH and operative delivery for fetal distress in 2778 infants born at term. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 1991; 38(2):97-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-2243(91)90184-M
  • Sunitha C, Rao PS, Prajwal S, Bhat RK. Correlation of intra partum electronic fetal monitoring with neonatal outcome. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6:2174-9. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20172299
  • Kumar N, Suman A, Sawant K. Relationship between immediate postpartum umbilical cord blood pH and fetal distress. Int J Contemp Pediatr. 2016;3:113-9. https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20160141
  • W M Aboulghar, M A Ibrahim, I S Allam, W Hosny, M Otify. Validity Of Cardiotocography In The Diagnosis Of Acute Fetal Hypoxia In Low Resources Settings. The Internet Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2013; 17(1).
  • Agrawal SK, Doucette F, Gratton R, Richardson B, Gagnon R. Intrapartum computerized fetal heart rate parameters and metabolic acidosis at birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(4):731-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(03)00806-8
  • van den Berg P, Schmidt S, Gesche J, Saling E. Fetal distress and the condition of the newborn using cardiotocography and fetal blood analysis during labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1987;94(1):72-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1987.tb02256.x
  • Sowmya, D., D. Anusha, Vijaya and V. Krishna. Evaluation of Cardiotocography (Ctg) Monitoring For Intrapartum Foetal Surveillance and Its Correlation with Apgar Score. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences (IOSR-JDMS). 2018; 17(6):42-50.
  • Kaban A, Cengiz H, Kaban I, Özcan A, Karakaş S. The Success of Cardiotocography in predicting Perinatal Outcome. J Clin Exp Invest. 2012;3(2):168-71. https://doi.org/10.5799/ahinjs.01.2012.02.0137
  • Parveen S. Umbilical cord arterial blood base excess as gold standard for foetal well being screening test validity at term delivery. J Pak Med Assoc. 2010;60(5):347-50.
  • Steer PJ, Eigbe F, Lissauer TJ, Beard RW. Interrelationships among abnormal cardiotocograms in labor, meconium staining of the amniotic fluid, arterial cord blood pH, and Apgar scores. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;74(5):715-21.
  • Patil SS, Sukanya, Rath S, George CE. Study on umbilical cord arterial blood gas analysis and cord blood lactate levels as predictors for adverse neonatal outcome: an observational study. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 7:1494-500. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20181342
  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006066