Cargando…
A randomised clinical trial on cardiotocography plus fetal blood sampling versus cardiotocography plus ST-analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram (STAN(®)) for intrapartum monitoring
BACKGROUND: Cardiotocography (CTG) is worldwide the method for fetal surveillance during labour. However, CTG alone shows many false positive test results and without fetal blood sampling (FBS), it results in an increase in operative deliveries without improvement of fetal outcome. FBS requires addi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2007
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1976105/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17655764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-7-13 |
_version_ | 1782135063031316480 |
---|---|
author | Westerhuis, Michelle EMH Moons, Karel GM van Beek, Erik Bijvoet, Saskia M Drogtrop, Addy P van Geijn, Herman P van Lith, Jan MM Mol, Ben WJ Nijhuis, Jan G Oei, S Guid Porath, Martina M Rijnders, Robbert JP Schuitemaker, Nico WE van der Tweel, Ingeborg Visser, Gerard HA Willekes, Christine Kwee, Anneke |
author_facet | Westerhuis, Michelle EMH Moons, Karel GM van Beek, Erik Bijvoet, Saskia M Drogtrop, Addy P van Geijn, Herman P van Lith, Jan MM Mol, Ben WJ Nijhuis, Jan G Oei, S Guid Porath, Martina M Rijnders, Robbert JP Schuitemaker, Nico WE van der Tweel, Ingeborg Visser, Gerard HA Willekes, Christine Kwee, Anneke |
author_sort | Westerhuis, Michelle EMH |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Cardiotocography (CTG) is worldwide the method for fetal surveillance during labour. However, CTG alone shows many false positive test results and without fetal blood sampling (FBS), it results in an increase in operative deliveries without improvement of fetal outcome. FBS requires additional expertise, is invasive and has often to be repeated during labour. Two clinical trials have shown that a combination of CTG and ST-analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) reduces the rates of metabolic acidosis and instrumental delivery. However, in both trials FBS was still performed in the ST-analysis arm, and it is therefore still unknown if the observed results were indeed due to the ST-analysis or to the use of FBS in combination with ST-analysis. METHODS/DESIGN: We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of non-invasive monitoring (CTG + ST-analysis) as compared to normal care (CTG + FBS), in a multicentre randomised clinical trial setting. Secondary aims are: 1) to judge whether ST-analysis of fetal electrocardiogram can significantly decrease frequency of performance of FBS or even replace it; 2) perform a cost analysis to establish the economic impact of the two treatment options. Women in labour with a gestational age ≥ 36 weeks and an indication for CTG-monitoring can be included in the trial. Eligible women will be randomised for fetal surveillance with CTG and, if necessary, FBS or CTG combined with ST-analysis of the fetal ECG. The primary outcome of the study is the incidence of serious metabolic acidosis (defined as pH < 7.05 and Bd(ecf )> 12 mmol/L in the umbilical cord artery). Secondary outcome measures are: instrumental delivery, neonatal outcome (Apgar score, admission to a neonatal ward), incidence of performance of FBS in both arms and cost-effectiveness of both monitoring strategies across hospitals. The analysis will follow the intention to treat principle. The incidence of metabolic acidosis will be compared across both groups. Assuming a reduction of metabolic acidosis from 3.5% to 2.1 %, using a two-sided test with an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, in favour of CTG plus ST-analysis, about 5100 women have to be randomised. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness of CTG and ST-analysis as compared to CTG and FBS will be studied. DISCUSSION: This study will provide data about the use of intrapartum ST-analysis with a strict protocol for performance of FBS to limit its incidence. We aim to clarify to what extent intrapartum ST-analysis can be used without the performance of FBS and in which cases FBS is still needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN95732366 |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-1976105 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2007 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-19761052007-09-12 A randomised clinical trial on cardiotocography plus fetal blood sampling versus cardiotocography plus ST-analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram (STAN(®)) for intrapartum monitoring Westerhuis, Michelle EMH Moons, Karel GM van Beek, Erik Bijvoet, Saskia M Drogtrop, Addy P van Geijn, Herman P van Lith, Jan MM Mol, Ben WJ Nijhuis, Jan G Oei, S Guid Porath, Martina M Rijnders, Robbert JP Schuitemaker, Nico WE van der Tweel, Ingeborg Visser, Gerard HA Willekes, Christine Kwee, Anneke BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Cardiotocography (CTG) is worldwide the method for fetal surveillance during labour. However, CTG alone shows many false positive test results and without fetal blood sampling (FBS), it results in an increase in operative deliveries without improvement of fetal outcome. FBS requires additional expertise, is invasive and has often to be repeated during labour. Two clinical trials have shown that a combination of CTG and ST-analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) reduces the rates of metabolic acidosis and instrumental delivery. However, in both trials FBS was still performed in the ST-analysis arm, and it is therefore still unknown if the observed results were indeed due to the ST-analysis or to the use of FBS in combination with ST-analysis. METHODS/DESIGN: We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of non-invasive monitoring (CTG + ST-analysis) as compared to normal care (CTG + FBS), in a multicentre randomised clinical trial setting. Secondary aims are: 1) to judge whether ST-analysis of fetal electrocardiogram can significantly decrease frequency of performance of FBS or even replace it; 2) perform a cost analysis to establish the economic impact of the two treatment options. Women in labour with a gestational age ≥ 36 weeks and an indication for CTG-monitoring can be included in the trial. Eligible women will be randomised for fetal surveillance with CTG and, if necessary, FBS or CTG combined with ST-analysis of the fetal ECG. The primary outcome of the study is the incidence of serious metabolic acidosis (defined as pH < 7.05 and Bd(ecf )> 12 mmol/L in the umbilical cord artery). Secondary outcome measures are: instrumental delivery, neonatal outcome (Apgar score, admission to a neonatal ward), incidence of performance of FBS in both arms and cost-effectiveness of both monitoring strategies across hospitals. The analysis will follow the intention to treat principle. The incidence of metabolic acidosis will be compared across both groups. Assuming a reduction of metabolic acidosis from 3.5% to 2.1 %, using a two-sided test with an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, in favour of CTG plus ST-analysis, about 5100 women have to be randomised. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness of CTG and ST-analysis as compared to CTG and FBS will be studied. DISCUSSION: This study will provide data about the use of intrapartum ST-analysis with a strict protocol for performance of FBS to limit its incidence. We aim to clarify to what extent intrapartum ST-analysis can be used without the performance of FBS and in which cases FBS is still needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN95732366 BioMed Central 2007-07-26 /pmc/articles/PMC1976105/ /pubmed/17655764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-7-13 Text en Copyright © 2007 Westerhuis et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Study Protocol Westerhuis, Michelle EMH Moons, Karel GM van Beek, Erik Bijvoet, Saskia M Drogtrop, Addy P van Geijn, Herman P van Lith, Jan MM Mol, Ben WJ Nijhuis, Jan G Oei, S Guid Porath, Martina M Rijnders, Robbert JP Schuitemaker, Nico WE van der Tweel, Ingeborg Visser, Gerard HA Willekes, Christine Kwee, Anneke A randomised clinical trial on cardiotocography plus fetal blood sampling versus cardiotocography plus ST-analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram (STAN(®)) for intrapartum monitoring |
title | A randomised clinical trial on cardiotocography plus fetal blood sampling versus cardiotocography plus ST-analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram (STAN(®)) for intrapartum monitoring |
title_full | A randomised clinical trial on cardiotocography plus fetal blood sampling versus cardiotocography plus ST-analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram (STAN(®)) for intrapartum monitoring |
title_fullStr | A randomised clinical trial on cardiotocography plus fetal blood sampling versus cardiotocography plus ST-analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram (STAN(®)) for intrapartum monitoring |
title_full_unstemmed | A randomised clinical trial on cardiotocography plus fetal blood sampling versus cardiotocography plus ST-analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram (STAN(®)) for intrapartum monitoring |
title_short | A randomised clinical trial on cardiotocography plus fetal blood sampling versus cardiotocography plus ST-analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram (STAN(®)) for intrapartum monitoring |
title_sort | randomised clinical trial on cardiotocography plus fetal blood sampling versus cardiotocography plus st-analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram (stan(®)) for intrapartum monitoring |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1976105/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17655764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-7-13 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT westerhuismichelleemh arandomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT moonskarelgm arandomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT vanbeekerik arandomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT bijvoetsaskiam arandomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT drogtropaddyp arandomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT vangeijnhermanp arandomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT vanlithjanmm arandomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT molbenwj arandomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT nijhuisjang arandomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT oeisguid arandomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT porathmartinam arandomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT rijndersrobbertjp arandomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT schuitemakernicowe arandomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT vandertweelingeborg arandomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT vissergerardha arandomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT willekeschristine arandomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT kweeanneke arandomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT westerhuismichelleemh randomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT moonskarelgm randomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT vanbeekerik randomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT bijvoetsaskiam randomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT drogtropaddyp randomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT vangeijnhermanp randomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT vanlithjanmm randomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT molbenwj randomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT nijhuisjang randomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT oeisguid randomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT porathmartinam randomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT rijndersrobbertjp randomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT schuitemakernicowe randomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT vandertweelingeborg randomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT vissergerardha randomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT willekeschristine randomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring AT kweeanneke randomisedclinicaltrialoncardiotocographyplusfetalbloodsamplingversuscardiotocographyplusstanalysisofthefetalelectrocardiogramstanforintrapartummonitoring |