Fetal Monitoring

  • Matthew V. Buck
  • Michael G. Richardson


The goal of peripartum fetal monitoring is improved neonatal outcomes, primarily neurological. Fetal monitoring may allow both obstetricians and anesthesiologists to provide more timely and specific intervention to the parturient and fetus, while ideally minimizing risks. Fetal monitoring technology has improved over the past 50 years, but classification and interpretation have lagged. It is hoped that increased attention to standardization of definitions, interpretation, and interventions, along with new emerging technology, will enhance electronic fetal monitoring’s effectiveness in assessment of fetal well-being and its contribution to better neonatal outcomes.


Cerebral Palsy Neonatal Outcome Fetal Heart Rate Uterine Contraction Fetal Monitoring 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Quilligan EJ, Paul RH. Fetal monitoring: is it worth it? Obstet Gynecol. 1975;45:96–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clark SL, Hankins GVD. Temporal and demographic trends in cerebral palsy: fact and fiction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:628–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Graham EM, Ruis KA, Hartman AL, Nothington FJ, Fox HE. A systemic review of the role of intrapartum hypoxia-ischemia in the causation of neonatal encephalopathy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:587–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen HY, Chauhan SP, Ananth CV, Vintzileos AM, Abuhamad AZ. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring and its relationship to neonatal and infant mortality in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:491.e1–10.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Phelen JP, Korst LM, Martin GI. Application of criteria developed by the task force on neonatal encephalopathy and cerebral palsy to acutely asphyxiated neonates. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:824–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thorgren-Jerneck K, Herbst A. Perinatal factors associated with cerebral palsy in children born in Sweden. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1499–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sureau C. Historical perspectives: forgotten past, unpredictable future. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;10:167–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hon EH. Apparatus for continuous monitoring of the fetal heart rate. Yale J Biol Med. 1960;32:397–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Uses and abuses of screening tests. Lancet. 2002;359:881–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grimes DA, Peipert JF. Electronic fetal monitoring as a public health screening program: the arithmetic of failure. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1397–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bernardes J, Ayres-de-Campos D. The persistent challenge of foetal heart rate monitoring. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;22:104–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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;114:192–202.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Costantine MM, Saade GR. The first cesarean: role of “fetal distress” diagnosis. Semin Perinatol. 2012;36:379–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Research Planning Workshop. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring: research guidelines for interpretation. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 1997;26:635–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Macones GA, Hankins GDV, Spong CY, Hauth J, Moore T. The 2008 National Institute of Child Hand Human Development workshop report on fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretations, and research guidelines. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:661–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 116: management of intrapartum fetal heart rate tracings. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1232–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miller DA, Miller LA. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring: applying principles of patient safety. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:278–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garite TJ, Simpson KR. Intrauterine resuscitation during labor. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;54:28–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parer JT, Ikeda T. A framework for standardized management of intrapartum fetal heart rate patterns. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:26.e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Parer JT, Hamilton EF. Comparison of 5 experts and computer analysis in rule-based fetal heart rate interpretation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:451.e1–7.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Coletta J, Murphy E, Rubeo Z, Gyamfi-Bannerman C. The 5-tier system of assessing fetal heart rate tracings is superior to the 3-tier system in identifying fetal acidemia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:226.e1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sadaka A, Furuhashi M, Minami H, Miyazaki K, Yoshida K, Ishikawa K. Observation on validity of the five-tier system for fetal heart rate pattern interpretation proposed by Japan Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011;24:1465–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goodwin TM, Milner-Masterson L, Paul RH. Elimination of fetal scalp blood sampling on a large clinical service. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;83:971–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    East CE, Leader LR, Sheehan P, Henshall NE, Colditz PB. Intrapartum fetal scalp lactate sampling for fetal assessment in the presence of a non-reassuring fetal heart rate trace. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(3):CD006174.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice. ACOG Committee opinion number 258, September 2001: fetal pulse oximetry. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:523–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stiller R, von Mering R, König V, Huch A, Huch R. How well does reflectance pulse oximetry reflect intrapartum fetal acidosis? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:1351–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wiberg-Itzel E, Lipponer C, Norman M, Herbst A, Prebensen D, Hansson A, et al. Determination of pH or lactate in fetal scalp blood in management of intrapartum fetal distress: randomised controlled multicentre trial. BMJ. 2008;336:1284–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bloom SL, Spong CY, Thom E, Varner MW, Rouse DJ, Weininger S, et al. Fetal pulse oximetry and cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2195–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lilja H, Greene KR, Karlsson K, Rosen KG. ST waveform changes of the fetal electrocardiogram during labor: a clinical study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985;92:611–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Westgate J, Harris M, Curnow JS, Greene KR. Plymouth randomized trial of cardiotocogram only versus ST waveform plus cardiotocogram for intrapartum monitoring in 2400 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;169:1151–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Amer-Wahlin I, Hellsten C, Noren H, Hagberg H, Herbst A, Kjellmer I, et al. Cardiotocography only versus cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram for intrapartum fetal monitoring: a Swedish randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2001;358:534–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Noren H, Amer-Wahlin I, Hagberg H, Herbst A, Kjellmer I, Marsal K, et al. Fetal electrocardiography in labor and neonatal outcome: data from the Swedish randomized controlled trial on intrapartum fetal monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:183–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Westerhuis ME, Visser GH, Moons KG, van Beek E, Benders MJ, Bijvoet SM, et al. Cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram compared with cardiotocography only for intrapartum monitoring: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:1173–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Noren H, Carlsson A. Reduced prevalence of metabolic acidosis at birth: an analysis of established STAN usage in the total population of deliveries in a Swedish district hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202:546.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Potti S, Berghella V. ST waveform analysis versus cardiotocography along for intrapartum fetal monitoring: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am J Perinatol. 2012;29:657–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yli BM, Kessler J, Eikeland T, Hustad BL, Dragnes W, Henriksen T. What is the gold standard for intrapartum fetal monitoring? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91:1011–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    American College of Nurse Midwives. Intermittent auscultation for intrapartum fetal heart rate surveillance. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010;55:397–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Obstetric AnesthesiologyVanderbilt University School of MedicineNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations