Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 1998;20(2):77-81
Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring (EFM) is the most widely used method of direct fetal surveillance especially during labor. In an attempt to elucidate the effect of EFM on cesarean section (CS) rates, a retrospective study was performed at the University Hospital of Santa Maria (HUSM). We studied two groups of patients, consisting of 2114 pregnant women: EFM group (n=517) and intermittent auscultation (IA) group (n=1597). In the EFM group we observed 38.0% of CS vs. 27.2% in the IA group. For all patients, the CS rate was 29.9%. Fetal distress was the most common indication for CS in the EFM group (40.6%), while previous CS was the third cause (10.1%). On the IA group, fetal distress was the third cause in CS (14.3%), while previous CS was the most common cause (32.4%). On the basis of this study, we believe that EFM has no effect in itself on cesarean section rates considering overall deliveries at HUSM. With proper education of the clinician and correct interpretation of the findings, EFM would not increase cesarean section rates, but rather should allow for a more accurate description of intrapartum fetal well-being.
Search
Search in:
Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring (EFM) is the most widely used method of direct fetal surveillance especially during labor. In an attempt to elucidate the effect of EFM on cesarean section (CS) rates, a retrospective study was performed at the University Hospital of Santa Maria (HUSM). We studied two groups of patients, consisting of 2114 pregnant women: EFM group (n=517) and intermittent auscultation (IA) group (n=1597). In the EFM group we observed 38.0% of CS vs. 27.2% in the IA group. For all patients, the CS rate was 29.9%. Fetal distress was the most common indication for CS in the EFM group (40.6%), while previous CS was the third cause (10.1%). On the IA group, fetal distress was the third cause in CS (14.3%), while previous CS was the most common cause (32.4%). On the basis of this study, we believe that EFM has no effect in itself on cesarean section rates considering overall deliveries at HUSM. With proper education of the clinician and correct interpretation of the findings, EFM would not increase cesarean section rates, but rather should allow for a more accurate description of intrapartum fetal well-being.
Comments