What would be considered a pyrexia in a labouring woman?
Sally
----- Original Message -----
From: "leanne wynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 9:12 AM
Subject: [ozmidwifery] article FYI - "another example of technology that
promises more than it delivers
Fetal O2 Monitoring Doesn't Change Outcomes or Cesarean Rates
By Neil Osterweil, MedPage Today Staff Writer
Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD; Emeritus Professor at the University of
Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
November 22, 2006
DALLAS, Nov. 22 -- Fetal oxygen saturation monitoring doesn't alter the
rate of caesarean deliveries or improve outcomes for newborns, researchers
in a large randomized study reported.
When investigators monitored more than 5,300 women in first-time labor
with fetal pulse oximetry, but randomly masked the data from half of the
observers, there were no significant differences in outcomes or in
Caesarean rates, reported Steven L. Bloom, M.D., of the University of
Texas Southwestern Medical Center here, and colleagues elsewhere.
The delivery teams equipped with fetal oxygen saturation data and those
kept in the dark acted similarly, the investigators reported in the Nov.
23 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
The findings suggest that fetal pulse oximetry may be another example of a
technology that promises more than it delivers, they authors added.
"The widespread adoption of intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring in the
early 1970s has been cited as an example of the incorporation of
technology without proof of benefit," they wrote.
"The development of fetal oxygen saturation might improve understanding of
fetal well-being during labor and thus reduce the rate of cesarean
delivery for the indication of abnormal fetal heart rate," they continued.
"Our trial confirms the value of rigorous assessment of new forms of
technology by showing that knowledge of fetal oxygen saturation does not
lead to a significant reduction in cesarean births overall or for the
indication of a nonreassuring fetal heart rate."
In an accompanying editorial, Michael F. Greene, M.D, of the Massachusetts
General Hospital in Boston agreed that those who seek a technological fix
to the problem of fetal monitoring need to keep searching.
"The reduction in the rate of cesarean deliveries that were performed out
of concern for intrapartum fetal asphyxia seen in previous studies was not
observed in this trial, nor was there the enigmatic increase in cesarean
deliveries for the indication of dystocia among women with non-reassuring
fetal heart-rate patterns," Dr. Greene wrote.
"The performance of electronic fetal heart-rate monitoring as a screening
test for fetal oxygen desaturation was poor. Neonatal outcomes were not
significantly different between the groups."
Although electronic fetal monitoring is used in about 85% of all live
births in the United States, its benefits, if any are uncertain, and
critics maintain that it may contribute to the surge in caesarean
deliveries, the authors noted.
Fetal pulse oximetry, approved conditionally by the FDA in 2000, was
intended to provide continuous fetal oxygen saturation data when there is
a "non-reassuring" fetal heart-rate pattern.
The device involves a sensor placed through the mother's dilated cervix
after her membranes have ruptured. The sensor is placed against the fetus'
face, and measures the fetus oxygen saturation levels during labor.
To determine whether knowledge of fetal oxygen saturation during labor
would have an effect of clinical practice or fetal outcomes, the
investigators conducted a multicenter study.
A total of 5,341 women who had never before given birth were enrolled at
14 centers. All women were assigned to electronic fetal monitoring with
fetal pulse oximetry, but in half of the cases the investigators were
blinded to the pulse oximetry data, while in the other half the clinicians
were allowed full access to the data.
The investigators collected data on fetal heart-rate patterns before
randomization, and used the information to stratify the study population
into two groups: one with non-reassuring fetal heart-rate patterns, for
whom fetal oximetry was primarily intended, and the other without fetal
heart-rate abnormalities before the time of randomization.
They defined a non-reassuring fetal heart-rate pattern, using criteria
from an earlier trial of fetal oximetry, as:
Severe variable decelerations (<70 beats per minute for at least 60
seconds)
Late decelerations
Bradycardia (<110 beats per minute)
Tachycardia (>160 beats per minute)
Diminished heart-rate variability (<5 beats per minute over a period of at
least 30 minutes)
One or more variable decelerations in two consecutive 30-minute windows
Increased heart-rate variability (>25 beats per minute over a period of 30
minutes)
Baseline rate of at least 100 to 120 beats per minute without
accelerations
Suspected fetal arrhythmia.
An investigator at each site reviewed all fetal heart rate tracings.
They found that there was no significant difference in the overall rates
of cesarean delivery between the groups, with 26.3% of women in the open
group and 27.% in the masked group undergoing Caesarean section (P=0.31).
The rates of cesarean delivery associated with a non-reassuring fetal
heart rate were also similar, occurring in 7.1% of cases in the open data
group and 7.9% of cases in the blinded data group (P=0.30).
Rates of dystocia (i.e., abnormal or difficult delivery) too were similar,
occurring in 18.6% of openly-monitored fetuses and 19.2% of fetuses
monitored under cover (P=0.59).
When they considered the 2,160 women whose fetus had a non-reassuring
heart rate before randomization, they found that the results were similar,
with no significant differences between unmasked and masked labor.
There were no significant differences in maternal or infant complications
or in the condition of the infants at birth.
"As with previous studies, application of the monitoring device was
generally successful, was not associated with a high incidence of adverse
effects, and was successful in obtaining the desired data about fetal
oxygen saturation approximately 74% of the time the device was in place,"
the investigators wrote. "Unfortunately, knowledge of this additional
fetal physiological information did not change the rates of cesarean or
operative vaginal delivery in either the general study population of 5,341
women or the subgroup of 2,168 women with non-reassuring fetal heart-rate
patterns."
In his editorial, Dr. Greene noted that the findings of no apparent
benefit from an added technology provide an opportunity for regulators.
"Should the FDA's charge be minimalist and framed very narrowly, to
approve a device that reliably does what it claims -- in this case,
accurately record fetal oxygen saturation -- while not injuring people in
the process?" he wrote. "Or should the FDA's charge be more expansive, to
approve a new device only after it demonstrates some medical value added
to the current standard of care?"
Primary source: New England Journal of Medicine
Source reference:
Bloom SL et al. "Fetal Pulse Oximetry and Cesarean Delivery." N Engl J Med
2006;355:2195-202
Additional source: New England Journal of Medicine
Source reference:
Greene MF. "Obstetricians Still Await a Deus ex Machine." N Engl J Med
2006;355:2247-2248
Leanne Wynne
Midwife in charge of "Women's Business"
Mildura Aboriginal Health Service Mob 0418 371862
_________________________________________________________________
Win a $40K private Lear Jet experience with Flight Sim X!
http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=730&referral=hotmailtagline&URL=http://games.ninemsn.com.au
--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.16/552 - Release Date:
26/11/2006 11:30 AM
--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.