首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Women s Health >Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring using a handheld Doppler versus Pinard stethoscope: a randomized controlled study in Dar es Salaam
【24h】

Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring using a handheld Doppler versus Pinard stethoscope: a randomized controlled study in Dar es Salaam

机译:使用手持式多普勒和Pinard听诊器进行产时胎儿心率监测:在达累斯萨拉姆的随机对照研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Background: Fetal stethoscopes are mainly used for intermittent monitoring of fetal heart rate (FHR) during labor in low-income countries, where perinatal mortality is still high. Handheld Dopplers are rarely available and are dependent on batteries or electricity. The objective was to compare the Pinard stethoscope versus a new wind-up handheld Doppler in the detection of abnormal FHR. Materials and methods: We conducted a randomized controlled study at Muhimbili National Hospital, Tanzania, from April 2013 to September 2015. Women with gestational age ≥37 weeks, cephalic presentation, normal FHR on admission, and cervical dilatation 7 cm were included. Primary outcome was abnormal FHR detection (160 beats/min). Secondary endpoints were time to delivery, mode of delivery, and perinatal outcomes. χ2, Fisher’s exact test, Mann–Whitney test, and logistic regression were conducted. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios were calculated with respective 95% confidence interval. Results: In total, 2,844 eligible women were assigned to FHR monitoring with Pinard (n=1,423) or Doppler (n=1,421). Abnormal FHRs were more often detected in the Doppler (6.0%) versus the Pinard (3.9%) arm (adjusted odds ratio =1.59, 95% confidence interval: 1.13–2.26, p =0.008). Median (interquartile range) time from abnormal FHR detection to delivery was comparable between Doppler and Pinard, ie, 80 (60,161) and 89 (52,165) minutes, respectively, as was the incidence of cesarean delivery (12.0% versus 12.2%). The incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes (fresh stillbirths, 24-hour neonatal admissions, and deaths) was similar overall; however, among newborns with abnormal FHR delivered vaginally, adverse outcomes were less incident in Doppler (7 of 43 births, 16.3%) than in the Pinard arm (10 of 23 births, 43.5%), p =0.021. Conclusion: Intermittent FHR monitoring using Doppler was associated with an increased detection of abnormal FHR compared to Pinard in a low-risk population. Time intervals from abnormal FHR detection to delivery were longer than recommended in both arms. Perinatal outcomes were better among vaginally delivered newborns with detected abnormal FHR in the Doppler arm.
机译:背景:胎儿听诊器主要用于围产期死亡率仍然很高的低收入国家的分娩期间间歇性监测胎儿心率(FHR)。手持式多普勒仪很少使用,并且取决于电池或电力。目的是比较皮纳德听诊器与新型发条式手持多普勒在检测异常FHR中的作用。材料和方法:我们于2013年4月至2015年9月在坦桑尼亚Muhimbili国家医院进行了一项随机对照研究。其中包括孕龄≥37周,头颅表现,入院时FHR正常且宫颈扩张<7 cm的妇女。主要结局是FHR检测异常(160次/分钟)。次要终点是分娩时间,分娩方式和围产期结局。 χ2,进行了Fisher精确检验,Mann-Whitney检验和逻辑回归。分别以95%的置信区间计算未经调整和经调整的优势比。结果:总共2,844名合格女性被分配到Pinard(n = 1,423)或Doppler(n = 1,421)进行FHR监测。在多普勒(6.0%)和皮纳德(3.9%)的手臂中更经常检测到异常FHR(调整后的优势比= 1.59,95%置信区间:1.13-2.26,p = 0.008)。从异常FHR检测到分娩的中位(四分位数范围)时间在多普勒和Pinard之间是可比的,即分别为80(60,161)分钟和89(52,165)分钟,剖宫产的发生率也一样(12.0%对12.2%)。总体上不良的围产期结局(新生死产,24小时新生儿入院和死亡)的发生率总体上相似;但是,在阴道分娩异常FHR的新生儿中,多普勒发生不良结局的事件(43例中的7例,占16.3%)比皮纳德臂(23例中的10例,43.5%)的发生率低,p = 0.021。结论:在低风险人群中,与Pinard相比,使用多普勒间歇性FHR监测与异常FHR的检测增加有关。从异常FHR检测到分娩的时间间隔都比两臂建议的时间长。在多普勒手臂中检测到异常FHR的阴道分娩新生儿围产期结局更好。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号