Comparative efficacy of admission cardiotocography in high risk and low risk pregnancies in predicting neonatal outcome
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20213844Keywords:
Admission CTG, High risk pregnancy, Neonatal outcomeAbstract
Background: Admission cardiotocography (CTG) is a test of fetal wellbeing performed during labor. A normal CTG is for 20-30 minutes and ranges from 110-160 bpm with beat to beat variability, two accelerations and no decelerations with two contractions (as per NICE 2018 guidelines). To study comparative efficacy of admission CTG in predicting neonatal out in high risk, low risk and universally in all pregnancy.
Methods: All high risk as well as low risk patients coming to labor room in labor were included in the study. CTG print was taken, and neonatal outcome as NICU admission were noted after taking written consent.
Results: 189 cases were taken.138 were high risk cases, CTG was taken: 91were reassuring, 47were abnormal (non-reassuring +abnormal). In terms of NICU admission, 21 and 26 neonates were admitted. Out of 51 low risk cases, 33 had reassuring CTG, and18 had abnormal; 7and 6 was the number of NICU admission, respectively. When compared, highest sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of 55.31%, 77% and 55.3% was seen in high risk pregnancy, whereas negative predictive value (78.8%) was slightly higher in low risk cases.
Conclusions: Admission CTG is a good predictor of neonatal outcome. Its predictive efficacy is more in high risk cases. It’s practicality in revealing poor neonatal outcome is more.
References
Behuria S, Nayak R. Admission cardiotocography as a screening test in high risk pregnancies and its co-relation with peri-natal outcome. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2016;5(10):3525-8.
Neilson JP. Fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) for fetal monitoring during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;19(3):CD000116.
Nice clinical guideline 55. Intrapartum care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth. National institute for health and clinical excellence. London: RCOG Press; 2007.
Mires G, Williams F, Howie P. Randomised controlled trial of cardiotocography versus Doppler auscultation of the fetal heart at admission in labour in low risk obstetric population. BMJ. 2001;322:1457-62.
Rajalekshmi M, Chithra J, Nithya R, Vijay N. Admission cardiotocography as a screening test to predict foetal outcome and mode of delivery. Indian J Obstet Gynecol Res. 2016;3:43-50.
Dhanalakshmi K. Validity of admission test as a screening test in differentiating high and low observational antenatal women. Madras Medical College, Chennai. 2009.
Bhartiya V, Sharma R, Kumar A, Srivastava H. Admission cardiotocography: a predictor of neonatal outcome. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2016;66(1):321-9.
Gupta M, Gupta P. Role of cardiotocography in high risk pregnancy and its correlation with increase caesarean section rate Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6(1):168-71.
Dhakare TJ, Patole KP. A study of cardiotocography during active labour to assess the perinatal outcome in high risk pregnancy. MVP J Med Sci. 2016;3(2):92-5.
Manning FA, Harman CR, Morrison I, Menticoglou SM, Lange IR, Johnson JM. Fetal assessment based on fetal biophysical profile scoring. IV. An analysis of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;162(3):703-9.
Akhavan S, Lak P, Rahimi-Sharbaf F, Mohammadi SR, Shirazi M. Admission test and pregnancy outcome. Iranian J Med Sci. 2017;42(4):362-8.
Hafizur R, Renjhen P, Dutta S, Kar S. Admission cardiotocography: its role in predicting foetal outcome in high‐risk obstetric patients. Australas Med J. 2012;5(10):522-7.
Kushtagi P, Narogoni S. Effectiveness of labour admission test as a screening tool. J Indian Med Assoc. 2002;100(4):234-36.
Ducey J, Guzman E, Schulman H, Farmakedis G, Karmin I. Value of a screening fetal heart rate tracing in the latent phase of labor. J Reprod Med. 1990;35(9):899-900.
Ingemarsson I. Electronic foetal monitoring as a screening test. In: Spencer JAD, Ward RHT, eds. Intrapartum foetal surveillance. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 1993:45-52.
