Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Review
Centre for Fetal Care, Queen Charlottes and Chelsea Hospital, Du Cane Road, London W12 0HS, UK
Institute for Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Imperial College London, London W12 0HS, UK
c
Mater Research Institute/University of Queensland, Aubigny Place, Raymond Terrace, South Brisbane, QLD 4101, Australia
b
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 3 September 2014
Received in revised form 31 January 2015
Accepted 7 April 2015
Whilst most cases of cerebral palsy occur as a consequence of an ante-natal insult, a signicant
proportion, particularly in the term fetus, are attributable to intra-partum hypoxia. Intra-partum
monitoring using continuous fetal heart rate assessment has led to an increased incidence of operative
delivery without a concurrent reduction in the incidence of cerebral palsy. Despite this, birth asphyxia
remains the strongest and most consistent risk factor for cerebral palsy in term infants. This review
evaluates current intra-partum monitoring techniques as well as alternative approaches aimed at better
identication of the fetus at risk of compromise in labour.
2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Cerebral palsy
Intrapartum monitoring
Hypoxia
Fetal distress
Fetal compromise
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Search strategy and selection criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Techniques used for intra-partum monitoring . . . . . . . .
Cardio-tocography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fetal pH and lactate levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fetal electrocardiogram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fetal pulse oximetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other techniques used to identify fetuses at risk
Doppler ultrasound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Umbilical artery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Middle cerebral artery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cerebro-umbilical ratio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Umbilical venous ow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Biochemical markers of placental function . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Authors contribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Disclosure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ethical approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
of compromise in labour
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
* Corresponding author at: Mater Research Institute/University of Queensland, Level 3, Aubigny Place, Raymond Terrace, South Brisbane, Queensland 4101, Australia.
Tel.: +61 7 31632564.
E-mail address: skumar@mmri.mater.org.au (S. Kumar).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.04.002
0301-2115/ 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Prior, S. Kumar / European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 190 (2015) 16
Introduction
During labour the feto-placental relationship is tested to its
highest degree as uterine contractions can reduce blood ow in the
uterine artery by as much as 60% [1]. Whilst in some cases, such as
fetal growth restriction, an increased risk of intra-partum compromise may be evident prior to labour, as much as 63% of cases of intrapartum hypoxia occur in pregnancies with no prior antenatal risk
factors [2]. Despite improvements in antenatal and intra-partum
care, as well as the introduction of continuous fetal monitoring, rates
of cerebral palsy have not declined over the last 30 years [3]. Whilst
some evidence suggests that ante-partum events are responsible for
the majority of cases of cerebral palsy [4,5], intra-partum events may
still account for a signicant proportion (between 9.6% and 14.5%)
[6,7], and possibly as much as 20% in term infants [8]. The debate
regarding causality is on-going, with a recent study suggesting that
the application of strict diagnostic criteria to hypoxic ischaemic
encephalopathy (HIE) revealing intra-partum events as the predominant antecedent in term babies [9]. Furthermore, a recent
systematic review concluded that birth asphyxia remained the
strongest and most consistent risk factor for cerebral palsy in term
infants [10]. These cases are over-represented in obstetric medicolegal claims [11], and often result in a high quantum of damages [12].
Given the spiralling costs of medical malpractice insurance, and the
possibility of affected infants requiring a lifetime of medical support,
cerebral palsy as well as other neurological sequelae of intra-partum
hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, represent a signicant nancial
burden to healthcare providers around the world.
With this in mind, much effort has been placed on techniques
to identify fetal hypoxia during labour, and to enable delivery of
the fetus before neurological damage takes place. fetal cardiotocography (CTG), ST-segment analysis (STAN), and pulse
oximetry have all been adopted into clinical practice to varying
extents in maternity units around the world. The most commonly
used technique for intra-partum fetal monitoring (CTG), when
compared to intermittent auscultation, has not resulted in a
decrease in the incidence of cerebral palsy [13], but is responsible
for an increase in the rates of obstetric intervention [13]. Other
techniques such as assessment of the fetal biophysical prole and
amniotic uid volume have been adopted in an attempt to identify
the fetus at risk of compromise, prior to the onset of labour. Much
of the technology currently used for intra-partum fetal monitoring
has poor positive predictive value for fetal compromise [14].
This review will consider the evidence supporting the use of
these techniques in identifying the fetus at risk of compromise and
enabling timely intervention to prevent long term neurological
sequelae.
Search strategy and selection criteria
A comprehensive search of PubMed was conducted. All articles
indexed on PubMed and published in English were considered
eligible for inclusion. Search terms including fetal compromise,
fetal distress, caesarean, neonatal outcomes, acidosis, and
operative delivery were combined with the names of monitoring
techniques to identify relevant articles. Where possible, evidence
from meta-analyses/systematic reviews was prioritised for inclusion. All included articles were reviewed by both manuscript
authors (TP and SK).
Techniques used for intra-partum monitoring
Cardio-tocography
Fetal electronic cardio-tocography (CTG) was developed in
1957 as a means of continuous monitoring of the fetal heart rate.
T. Prior, S. Kumar / European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 190 (2015) 16
with neonatal condition than pO2 or pCO2 [32]. However, the use of
FBS varies signicantly between different maternity units and
different Obstetricians. Despite the reported improved specicity
over CTG alone, the use of FBS has not been shown to reduce the
number of Caesarean sections performed due to fetal distress [13]
or improve neonatal outcomes [31]. Furthermore, FBS is an
invasive procedure, and is not always easy to perform in labour. A
Cochrane review suggested that insufcient samples are obtained
in as many as 20% of cases [33]. Even in optimal conditions, FBS
provides information on the fetal condition only at the time of
sampling. Importantly, even with an scalp pH of >7.3, fetuses with
an abnormal CTG pattern are still at an increased risk of low Apgar
scores at delivery compared to those with a normal CTG [34].
Fetal lactate levels obtained from an intra-partum fetal blood
sample have been reported to be more predictive of neonatal
encephalopathy and low Apgar score than the pH [35]. The
optimum discriminatory value for fetal lactate is suggested to be
greater than or equal to 4.2 mmol/L [36], whilst a number of
published trials have used 4.8 mmol/L as a cut off value to dene
metabolic acidosis [35,37]. Despite the promising results reported
by Kruger et al. [35], two randomised controlled trials comparing
the use of lactate and pH failed to demonstrate an improvement in
neonatal outcomes in the lactate analysis group, or a change in
operative delivery rates [37,38]. Whilst some publications [39,40]
did not demonstrate a correlation between lactate levels and
Apgar scores at delivery, an observational study published in
2011 suggested lactate levels do have a greater correlation with
metabolic acidosis at delivery than either scalp pH or base decit
[41]. A systematic review in 2010 however concluded, that while
current evidence suggested the efcacy of fetal lactate was at least
equivalent to that of pH for the identication of the compromised
fetus, further studies designed to evaluate diagnostic accuracy
were required [33].
Fetal electrocardiogram
The difculties associated with CTG analysis and interpretation
has encouraged continued development of other technologies to
help identify fetal compromise during labour. The fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) is one such technique, and it is used in some
maternity units to supplement the CTG when continuous fetal
monitoring is indicated. However, it can only be used following
rupture of membranes, and requires the application of a fetal scalp
electrode, making it unsuitable for all cases [42]. In the ovine
model, hypoxia causes measurable ST segment elevation and
alterations in the relationship of the PR-RR interval [43,44]. The use
of ST segment analysis to compliment fetal CTG has been evaluated
in several studies. The Plymouth randomised trial in 1993
compared CTG plus ST segment analysis with CTG alone in 1200
cases. A reduction in the incidence of operative delivery for fetal
compromise was the only statistically signicant nding. However, this reduction was amongst cases with CTG recordings classied
as normal/intermediate, with no reduction found in cases with
pathological CTG recordings [45] thereby limiting its impact.
Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis suggested that the use of fetal
ECG to compliment conventional CTG did not lead to a reduction in
Caesarean or instrumental delivery for presumed fetal compromise, or metabolic acidosis at delivery. The only signicant nding
was a reduction in the number of fetal blood sampling procedures
performed [46]. Assessment of ST segment analysis (STAN) as a
means to improve neonatal outcomes and reduce interventions
has been hampered by a failure to follow guidelines associated
with this technology. The observation that in several trials
evaluating the use of ST segment analysis, cases of neonatal
encephalopathy or metabolic acidosis were often associated with a
deviation from intra-partum monitoring protocols [47,48] led one
T. Prior, S. Kumar / European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 190 (2015) 16
T. Prior, S. Kumar / European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 190 (2015) 16
T. Prior, S. Kumar / European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 190 (2015) 16
[44] Neilson J. Fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) for fetal monitoring during labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;18(April (4)):CD000116.
[45] Westgate J, Harris M, Curnow J, Greene K. Plymouth randomized trial of
cardiotocogram only versus ST waveform plus cardiotocogram for intrapartum monitoring in 2400 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;169(November
(5)):115160.
[46] Salmelin A, Wiklund I, Bottinga R, et al. Fetal monitoring with computerised ST
analysis during labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet
Gynecol Scand 2012.
[47] Amer-Wahlin I, Hellsten C, Noren H, et al. Cardiotocography only versus
cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram for intrapartum
fetal monitoring: a Swedish randomised controlled trial. Lancet
2001;358(9281):5348.
[48] Doria V, Papageorghiou AT, Gustafsson A, Ugwumadu A, Farrer K, Arulkumaran
S. Review of the rst 1502 cases of ECG-ST waveform analysis during labour in
a teaching hospital. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2007;114(10):12027.
[49] Westerhuis M, Kwee A, Van Ginkel AA, Drogtrop AP, Gyselaers WJA, Visser
GHA. Limitations of ST analysis in clinical practice: three cases of intrapartum
metabolic acidosis. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2007;114(10):1194201.
[50] Doret M, Massoud M, Constans A, Gaucherand P. Use of peripartum ST analysis
of fetal electrocardiogram without blood sampling: a large prospective cohort
study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011;156(1):3540.
[51] Gardosi J, Carter M, Becket T. Continuous intrapartum monitoring of fetal
oxygen saturation. Lancet 1989;334(8664):6923.
[52] Dildy GA, Thorp JA, Yeast JD, Clark SL. The relationship between oxygen
saturation and pH in umbilical blood: implications for intrapartum fetal
oxygen saturation monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175(3):6827.
[53] Johnson N, Johnson V. Continuous fetal monitoring with a pulse oximeter: a case
of cord compression. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161(November (5)):12956.
[54] McNamara H, Chung D, Lilford R, Johnson N. Do fetal pulse oximetry readings
at delivery correlate with cord blood oxygenation and acidaemia? Br J Obstet
Gynaecol 1992;99(September (9)):7358.
[55] Garite TJ, Dildy GA, McNamara H, et al. A multicenter controlled trial of fetal
pulse oximetry in the intrapartum management of nonreassuring fetal heart
rate patterns. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183(5):104958.
[56] Kuhnert M, Schmidt S. Intrapartum management of nonreassuring fetal heart
rate patterns: a randomized controlled trial of fetal pulse oximetry. Am J
Obstet Gynecol 2004;191(6):198995.
[57] East CE, Brennecke SP, King JF, Chan FY, Colditz PB. The effect of intrapartum
fetal pulse oximetry, in the presence of a nonreassuring fetal heart rate
pattern, on operative delivery rates: a multicenter, randomized, controlled
trial (the FOREMOST trial). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194(3). 606.e116.
[58] Bloom SL, Spong CY, Thom E, et al. Fetal pulse oximetry and cesarean delivery.
N Engl J Med 2006;355(21):2195202. PubMed PMID: 17124017.
[59] East CE, Colditz PB. Intrapartum oximetry of the fetus. Anesth Analg
2007;105(December (6S Suppl.)):S5965.
[60] Johnson N, Johnson V, Fisher J, Jobbings B, Bannister J, Lilford R. Fetal monitoring with pulse oximetry. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991;98(January (1)):3641.
[61] East C, Chan F, Colditz P, Begg L. Fetal pulse oximetry for fetal assessment in
labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;18(April (2)):CD004075.
[62] NICE. CG55: Intraspartum Care.
[63] Hershkovitz R, Kingdom JCP, Geary M, Rodeck CH. Fetal cerebral blood ow
redistribution in late gestation: identication of compromise in small fetuses
with normal umbilical artery Doppler. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
2000;15(3):20912.
[64] Arbeille P, Maulik D, Fignon A, et al. Assessment of the fetal pO2 changes by
cerebral and umbilical Doppler on lamb fetuses during acute hypoxia. Ultrasound Med Biol 1995;21(7):86170.
[65] Brar H, Platt L, Paul R. Fetal umbilical blood ow velocity waveforms using
Doppler ultrasonography in patients with late decelerations. Obstet Gynecol
Clin N Am 1989;73(March (3 Pt 1)):3636.
[66] Ogunyemi D, Stanley R, Lynch C, Edwards D, Fukushima T. Umbilical artery
velocimetry in predicting perinatal outcome with intrapartum fetal distress.
Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 1992;80(September (3 Pt 1)):37780.
[67] Yoon BH, Oh IH, Lee PR, Kim WJ, Syn HC, Kim SW. Is an abnormal Doppler
umbilical artery waveform ratio a risk factor for poor perinatal outcome in the
non-small for gestational age fetus? Am J Perinatol 1993;10(3):2459.
PubMed PMID: 101055S2007994730.
[68] Chan F, Lam C, Lam Y, To W, Pun T, Lee C. Umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry
compared with fetal heart rate monitoring as a labor admission test. Eur J
Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1994;54(March (1)):16.
[69] Farrell T, Chien P, Gordon A. Intrapartum umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry
as a predictor of adverse perinatal outcome: a systematic review. Br J Obstet
Gynaecol 1999;106(August (8)):78392.
[70] Alrevic Z, Stampalija T, Gyte GM. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in
normal pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;8(8):CD001450.
PubMed PMID: 20687066. Epub 2010/08/06.eng.