Skip to main content
Log in

Caesarean Section for Foetal Distress and Correlation with Perinatal Outcome

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The main documented indication of intrapartum caesarean section is foetal distress (MacKenzie and Cooke in BMJ 323(7318):930, 2001). Foetal distress indicates foetal hypoxia and acidosis during intrauterine life.

Purpose

To correlate the diagnosis of foetal distress and perinatal outcome.

Methods

This was a prospective observational study of women who underwent caesarean section for foetal distress as detected by cardiotocography and not responding to intrauterine resuscitation. The foetal Apgar score at 1 and 5 min was recorded and cord blood pH was measured in all cases. The neonatal outcome was studied with regard to the need for supportive ventilation and admission to NICU/nursery.

Results

In our study, 14.38 % cases diagnosed with foetal distress subsequently had poor outcome. Twenty-one babies had a 5-min Apgar score <7, required immediate resuscitation and were admitted in NICU. Twelve foetuses had a 1-min Apgar score <4, while there were three cases of severe birth asphyxia (Apgar score <4 at 5 min); of these, two babies died. The neonatal outcome was poorer in cases with associated complicating factors.

Conclusion

The diagnosis of foetal distress is imprecise and a poor predictor of foetal outcome—the result is a tendency for unnecessary caesarean sections. On the contrary, lack of adverse outcome could reflect that our unit makes decisions at a time before clinically significant foetal compromise occurs.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. MacKenzie IZ, Cooke I. Prospective 12 month study of 30 minute decision to delivery intervals for “emergency” caesarean section. BMJ. 2001;322:1334–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Tufnell DJ, Wilkinson K, Beresford N. Interval between decision and delivery by caesarean section—Are current standards achievable? Observational case series. BMJ. 2001;322:1330–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hornbuckle J, Vail A, Abrans KR, et al. Bayesian interpretation of trials: the example of intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;107:3–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Oloffson P. Current status of intrapartum fetal monitoring: cardiotocography versus cardiotocography + ST analysis of the fetal ECG. Eur J Obstet Gynaecol Rep Biol. 2003;110:S113–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nielson JP, Grant AM. The randomized trials of intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring. In: Spencer JA, Ward RH, editors. Intrapartum fetal surveillance. London: RCOG Press; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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(1):192–202. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181aef106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. American college of obstetrics and gynaecology. Fetal heart rate patterns: monitoring, interpretation and management. American College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Technical Bulletin. 1995;207:182–9.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Thacker SB, Strout D, Chang M. Continuous electronic heart rate monitoring for assessment during labor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;2:CD000063.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Neilson JP. Fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) for fetal monitoring in labor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;2:CD000116.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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;182:214–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Goodwin TM, Milner Masterson L, Paul R. Elimination of fetal scalp blood sampling on a large clinical service. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;83:971–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Amer-Wahlin I, Hellsten C, Noren H, et al. Cardiotocography only versus cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram for intrapartum fetal monitoring: a Swedish randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2001;358(9281):534–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Reed NN, Mohajer MP, Sahota DS, et al. The potential impact of PR interval analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram (FECG) on intrapartum fetal monitoring. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Rep Biol. 1996;86:87–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wijngarden WJV, Strachan BK, Sahota DS, et al. Improving intrapartum surveillance: An individualized T/QRS ratio? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Rep Biol. 2000;88:43–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richa Gangwar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Richa Gangwar and Sarita Chaudhary declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008(5).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Additional information

Dr. Richa Gangwar is a Senior Resident in Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Lady Hardinge Medical College. Dr. Sarita Chaudhary is an Assistant Professor in Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Lady Hardinge Medical College.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gangwar, R., Chaudhary, S. Caesarean Section for Foetal Distress and Correlation with Perinatal Outcome. J Obstet Gynecol India 66 (Suppl 1), 177–180 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-015-0831-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-015-0831-5

Keywords

Navigation