Effectiveness of three electronic fetal monitoring systems in identifying neonatal acidosis during labor
10.3760/cma.j.cn113903-20230811-00101
- VernacularTitle:三种电子胎心监护评价系统评估新生儿酸中毒的效果比较
- Author:
Lili QIU
1
;
Huilian HU
;
Ling YANG
;
Ning GU
;
Zhenhua ZHU
;
Jing FANG
;
Yan ZHOU
;
Yimin DAI
Author Information
1. 南京大学医学院附属鼓楼医院妇产科，南京 210016
- Keywords:
Fetal monitoring;
Acidosis;
Fetal hypoxia;
Electronic fetal monitoring;
Case-control study
- From:
Chinese Journal of Perinatal Medicine
2024;27(5):362-370
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To analyze the effectiveness and interobserver agreement of the Parer five-tier, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) three-tier, and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) three-tier electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) systems in identification of neonatal acidosis during labor.Methods:This retrospective study was conducted on full-term singleton cephalic deliveries with neonatal acidosis (umbilical artery blood gas pH≤7.1) and normal newborns (umbilical artery blood gas pH≥7.2) in the Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing University Medical School from January to December 2020. EFM tracings during the last 30-60 min before delivery were collected. Four obstetricians independently described the features of randomly sorted and coded EFM tracings. Another obstetrician categorized these tracings using the NICHD three-tier, FIGO three-tier, and Parer five-tier evaluation systems based on the features. All researchers were masked to the clinical characteristics and maternal and neonatal outcomes. The sensitivity and specificity for identifying neonatal acidosis, as well as the interobserver agreement, were analyzed for all three systems. Independent sample t-test, Chi-square (or Fisher's exact test) and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analysis. Inter-group comparisons of sensitivity and specificity between the three evaluation systems were assessed using McNemar's test. The Kappa statistic was used to analyze interobserver agreement. Results:This study included a total of 3 558 cases. After propensity score matching, there were 44 cases of neonatal acidosis and 78 control cases. There were no significant differences in parity, gestational weeks, modes of delivery, placental abruption, or analgesia rates between the two groups. The rates of instrumental vaginal delivery and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission in the acidosis group were significantly higher than those in the control group [15.8% (7/44) vs. 2.6% (2/78), χ2=8.45, P=0.003; 31.8% (14/44) vs. 12.8% (10/78), χ2=8.45, P=0.004], while the umbilical artery blood pH and mean base excess were lower in the acidosis group than in the control group [7.04±0.07 vs. 7.30±0.05, t=4.98; (－12.40±3.32) vs. (－5.64±1.95) mmol/L, t=13.61; both P<0.001]. (2) Using the NICHD three-tier system, 95.5% (42/44) of the acidosis cases and 89.7% (70/78) of the control cases were classified as having category Ⅱ EFM tracings, indicating potential fetal acid-base imbalance; category Ⅲ EFM tracings were only observed in 4.5% (2/44) of the cases in the acidosis group. With the FIGO three-tier system, 81.8% (36/44) of the acidosis cases were categorized as having "pathological" tracings, and with the Parer five-tier system, 86.4% (38/44) of the acidosis cases were correctly classified into the "orange or red" risk zones that indicated acid-base imbalance. Among the control cases, there were 28.2% (22/78) with EFM tracings of "normal patterns" categorized by the FIGO three-tier system, and 41.0% (32/78) classified into the "green or blue" risk zones by the Parer five-tier system, which indicated good fetal conditions. None of the acidosis cases were misdiagnosed as being normal by the Parer five-tier system. (3) Compared with the NICHD three-tier system, both the FIGO three-tier and the Parer five-tier systems showed increased diagnostic sensitivity [4.5% (1.2%- 14.5%) vs. 81.8% (66.8%-89.4%) and 86.4% (71.8%-92.4%)], but decreased specificity [100.0% (95.3%- 100.0%) vs. 87.2% (78.0%-92.9%) and 84.6% (75.0%-91.0%)]. There was no statistically significant difference in the sensitivity or specificity between the FIGO three-tier and Parer five-tier systems for identifying neonatal acidosis ( P=0.727 and 0.791). (4) When reading the tracings of control cases, the total agreement rate for the NICHD three-tier system by different observers was as high as 94.2%, while the total agreement rates for the FIGO three-tier and Parer five-tier systems were 69.7% and 67.7%, respectively. In the interpretation of EFHR tracings for acidosis cases, the interobserver agreement for the Parer five-tier system was excellent [Kappa (95% CI): 0.87 (0.79-0.95)], while both the NICHD three-tier and FIGO three-tier systems showed good agreement [Kappa (95% CI): 0.77 (0.66-0.88) and 0.72 (0.60-0.84)]. Conclusions:The Parer five-tier and the FIGO three-tier systems have higher sensitivity in identifying neonatal acidosis than the NICHD three-tier system, and the Parer five-tier system achieves a higher negative predictive value and a greater agreement in the interpretation of pathological EFM patterns.
