Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 288, Issue 5, pp 1017–1020 | Cite as

Signal quality of non-invasive fetal electrocardiogram in vaginal breech delivery: a case–controlled study

  • Nicole Sänger
  • Frank Louwen
  • Joscha ReinhardEmail author
  • Juping Yuan
  • Lars Hanker
Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Recently, a non-invasive fetal electrocardiogram monitor has been approved for clinical usage in labour and delivery. To determine the fetal signal quality of vaginal breech deliveries in comparison with a case–controlled cephalic group during labour.

Study design

This case–control study was carried out at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the University Hospital Frankfurt between 1st July 2012 and 30th September 2012. A total of seven breech deliveries were evaluated. A case–controlled cephalic group with same gestational age and parity were selected from a previous trial.

Results

During first stage of labour, vaginal breech and cephalic delivery had no significant different fetal signal success rates (mean 87.8 vs. 85.7 %; p > 0.05). There was a trend of higher fetal signal success rates in the vaginal breech delivery group during second stage of labour (78.4 vs. 55.4 %; p = 0.08).

Conclusion

Similar fetal signal success rates in vaginal breech delivery in comparison to cephalic presentation were demonstrated using the new commercially available non-invasive abdominal fECG device (the Monica AN24TM).

Keywords

Vaginal breech delivery Non-invasive fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) Active second stage of labour Maternal outcome Neonatal outcome 

Notes

Conflict of interest

Monica health care Ltd. has sponsored various other studies at a total amount of around 65.000€.

Ethical approval

Ethics approval was granted by the local university of Frankfurt ethics committee.

References

  1. 1.
    Bracht E (1936) Zur manualhilfe bei Beckenendlage. Ztschr Geburtsh Gynäk 112:271Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bracht E (1938) Zur Behandlung der Steisslage. Zentralbl Gynäk 62:1735Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Plentl AA, Stone RE (1953) The bracht maneuver. Obstet Gynecol Surv 8:313–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA et al (2000) Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 356:1375–1383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glezerman M (2006) Five years to the term breech trial: the rise and fall of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:20–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S et al (2004) Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned cesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomized term breech trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 19:864–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kotaska A, Menticoglou S, Gangnon R et al (2009) Vaginal delivery of breech presentation. SOGC clinical practicse guideline. JOGC 226:557–566Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. Leitlinie: Geburt bei Beckenendlage. DGGG Stand Januar 2010. http://www.dggg.de/leitlinien/aktuelle-leitlinien/3-praenatal-und-geburtsmedizin/
  9. 9.
    ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice (2006) ACOG Committee Opinion No. 340. Mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol 108:235–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Louwen F, Leuchter LM, Reitter A (2012) Bekcenendlagengeburt––mehr als Sectio vs Spontangeburt. Z Geburtsh Neonatol 216:191–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hofmeyr GJ, Impey LWM. RCOG guideline No. 20b. The management of breech presentation. 2006. http://www.rcog.org.uk/print/womens-health/clinical-guidance/management-breech-presentation-green-top-20b
  12. 12.
    Reinhard J, Louwen F (2012) Non-invasive foetal ECG––a comparable alternative to the doppler CTG? Geburtsh Frauenheilk 72:211–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reinhard J, Hatzmann H, Schiermeier S (2008) Fetales elektrokardiogramm (EKG) als alternative der doppler-kardiotokografie (CTG) zur antepartualen Überwachung des Feten––erste Ergebnisse. Z Geburtsh Neonatol 212:226–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reinhard J, Hayes-Gill BR, Yi Q, Hatzmann H, Schiermeier S (2009) Signalqualität der nicht-invasiven fetalen Echokardiographie (EKG) unter der Geburt. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 69:703–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reinhard J, Hayes-Gill BR, Yi Q, Hatzmann H, Schiermeier S (2010) The equivalence of non-invasive foetal electrocardiogram (fECG) to doppler cardiotocogram (CTG) ultrasound during the 1st stage of labour. J Perinat Med 38:179–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reinhard J, Hayes-Gill BR, Schiermeier S, Löser H, Niedballa LM, Haarmann E, Sonnwald A, Hatzmann W, Heinrich TM, Louwen F (2011) Uterine activity monitoring during labour––a multi-centre, blinded two-way trial of external tocodynamometry against electrohysterography. Z Geburtsh Neonatol 215:199–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reinhard J, Hayes-Gill BR, Schiermeier S, Hatzmann W, Heinrich TM, Louwen F (2013) Intrapartum fetal and maternal heart rate ambiguity––a comparison of doppler ultrasound CTG and the abdominal fetal electrocardiogram with maternal electrocardiogram. Gynecol Obstet Invest 75:101–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sänger N, Hayes-Gill B, Schiermeier S, Hatzmann W, Yuan J, Herrmann E, Louwen F, Reinhard J (2012) Antepartales fetales nicht-invasives EKG statt CTG––Eine bessere Alternative zum CTG? Geburtsh Frauenheilk 72:630–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reinhard J, Hayes-Gill BR, Schiermeier S, Hatzmann W, Herrmann E, Heinrich TM, Louwen F (2012) Intrapartum signal quality with external fetal heart rate monitoring––a two way trial of external doppler CTG ultrasound and the abdominal fetal electrocardiogramm. Arch Gynecol Obstet 286:1103–1107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rooth G, Huch A, Huch R (1987) Guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring. Int J Gynecol Obstet 25:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Deutsche Gesellschaft für perinatale Medizin, AG für materno-fetale Medizin, deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. Anwendung des CTG während Schwangerschaft und Geburt. Frauenarzt 2004; 45:979–989Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rooth G, Huch A, Huch R (1987) FIGO news: guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 25:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Solum T (1980) A comparison of three methods for external fetal cardiography. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scan 59:123–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bakker PCAM, Colenbrander GJ, Verstraeten AA, Van Geijn HP (2004) The quality of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 116:22–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Amer-Wahlin I, Hellsten C (2001) Nore’n H et al cardiotocography only versus cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram for intrapartum fetal monitoring: a swedish randomised controlled trial. Lancet 358:534–538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fraser WD, Turcot L, Krauss I, Brisson-Carrol G (2007) With-drawn: amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18: CD000015Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicole Sänger
    • 1
  • Frank Louwen
    • 1
  • Joscha Reinhard
    • 2
    Email author
  • Juping Yuan
    • 1
  • Lars Hanker
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of MedicineJohann Wolfgang Goethe-University Frankfurt am MainFrankfurt am MainGermany
  2. 2.St. MarienkrankenhausFrankfurt am MainGermany
  3. 3.Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und GeburtshilfeUniversitätsklinikum Schleswig-HolsteinLübeckGermany

Personalised recommendations