Fetal heart rate (FHR) decelerations are the commonest aberrant feature on cardiotocograph (CTG) thus having a major influence on classification ofFHRpatterns into the three tier system. The unexplained paradox of ear...Fetal heart rate (FHR) decelerations are the commonest aberrant feature on cardiotocograph (CTG) thus having a major influence on classification ofFHRpatterns into the three tier system. The unexplained paradox of early decelerations (head compression—an invariable phenomenon in labor) being extremely rare [1] should prompt a debate about scientific validity of current categorization. This paper demonstrates that there appear to be major fallacies in the pathophysiological hypothesis (cord compression—baroreceptor mechanism) underpinning of vast majority of (variable?) decelerations. Rapid decelerations during contractions with nadir matching peak of contractions are consistent with “pure” vagal reflex (head compression) rather than result of fetal blood pressure or oxygenation changes from cord compression. Hence, many American authors have reported that the abrupt FHR decelerations attributed to cord compression are actually due to head compression [2-6]. The paper debates if there are major fundamental fallacies in current categorization of FHR decelerations based concomitantly on rate of descent (reflecting putative aetiology?) and time relationship to contractions. Decelerations with consistently early timing (constituting majority) seem to get classed as “variable” because of rapid descent. A distorted unscientific categorization of FHR decelerations could lead to clinically unhelpful three tier classification system. Hence, the current unphysiological classification needs a fresh debate with consideration of alternative models and re-evaluation of clinical studies to test these. Open debate improves patient care and safety. The clue to benign reflex versus hypoxic nature of decelerations seems to be in the timing rather than the rate of descent. Although the likelihood of fetal hypxemia is related to depth and duration ofFHRdecelerations, the cut-offs are likely to be different for early/late/variable decelerations and it seems to be of paramount importance to get this discrimination right for useful visual or computerized system of CTG interpretation.展开更多
Objective: To test the reproducibility of British experts’ (eFM, K2MS, Gibb and Arulkumaran) [1-3] illustrations of fetal heart rate (FHR) decelerations by trained British Obstetricians and midwives. To analyze reaso...Objective: To test the reproducibility of British experts’ (eFM, K2MS, Gibb and Arulkumaran) [1-3] illustrations of fetal heart rate (FHR) decelerations by trained British Obstetricians and midwives. To analyze reasons for any discrepancies by examining factors relating to the participants, British experts’ descriptions and NICE guidelines [4]. Design: Prospective observational study. Setting: National Health Service (NHS) Hospitals. Participants: 38 Obstetric Consultants, 49 registrars and 45 midwives. Methods: Printed questionnaire. Statistical Analysis: Fisher’s Exact test. Results: This largest study of its kind showed almost unbelievably high disconnect between CTG interpretation by experts and participants. 98% - 100% midwives, 80% - 100% Registrars and 74% - 100% Consultants categorized FHR decelerations differently from the five experts’ illustrations/interpretations (p < 0.0001). Remarkably, the three experts’ illustrations of early (supposedly most benign) decelerations were classed as atypical variable by 56% Consultants, 78% Registrars and 99% midwives and the CTGs as pathological by 85% of the participants. Conclusions: The high degree of disagreement with the experts’ illustrations (p < 0.0001) did not appear to be due to participant factors. The immediate reasons seemed to be the conflicting illustrations and heterogeneity of experts’ descriptions. But most importantly, these appeared to stem from non-standardized ambiguous definitions of FHR decelerations and many intrinsic systemic flaws in the current NICE guidelines [4]. The NICE concept of “true uniform” (identical) early and late decelerations seems biologically implausible (a myth) and no examples can be found. Another myth seems to be that early and late decelerations should be gradual. Only very shallow decelerations will look “gradual” on the British CTG. These systemic flaws lead to dysfunctional CTG interpretation increasing intervention as well as impairing diagnosis of fetal hypoxemia. This is because the vast majority of FHR decelerations fall in a single heterogeneous “variable” group with many further classed as “atypical” (pathological) based on disproven and discredited criteria [5-7]. There is increasing evidence in USA that a system with variable decelerations as the majority is clinically unhelpful because of loss of information [5-9]. In the interest of patient care and safety, open debate is necessary regarding a better way forward. Classification of FHR decelerations based primarily and solely on time relationship to contractions appears more scientific and clinically useful.展开更多
文摘Fetal heart rate (FHR) decelerations are the commonest aberrant feature on cardiotocograph (CTG) thus having a major influence on classification ofFHRpatterns into the three tier system. The unexplained paradox of early decelerations (head compression—an invariable phenomenon in labor) being extremely rare [1] should prompt a debate about scientific validity of current categorization. This paper demonstrates that there appear to be major fallacies in the pathophysiological hypothesis (cord compression—baroreceptor mechanism) underpinning of vast majority of (variable?) decelerations. Rapid decelerations during contractions with nadir matching peak of contractions are consistent with “pure” vagal reflex (head compression) rather than result of fetal blood pressure or oxygenation changes from cord compression. Hence, many American authors have reported that the abrupt FHR decelerations attributed to cord compression are actually due to head compression [2-6]. The paper debates if there are major fundamental fallacies in current categorization of FHR decelerations based concomitantly on rate of descent (reflecting putative aetiology?) and time relationship to contractions. Decelerations with consistently early timing (constituting majority) seem to get classed as “variable” because of rapid descent. A distorted unscientific categorization of FHR decelerations could lead to clinically unhelpful three tier classification system. Hence, the current unphysiological classification needs a fresh debate with consideration of alternative models and re-evaluation of clinical studies to test these. Open debate improves patient care and safety. The clue to benign reflex versus hypoxic nature of decelerations seems to be in the timing rather than the rate of descent. Although the likelihood of fetal hypxemia is related to depth and duration ofFHRdecelerations, the cut-offs are likely to be different for early/late/variable decelerations and it seems to be of paramount importance to get this discrimination right for useful visual or computerized system of CTG interpretation.
文摘Objective: To test the reproducibility of British experts’ (eFM, K2MS, Gibb and Arulkumaran) [1-3] illustrations of fetal heart rate (FHR) decelerations by trained British Obstetricians and midwives. To analyze reasons for any discrepancies by examining factors relating to the participants, British experts’ descriptions and NICE guidelines [4]. Design: Prospective observational study. Setting: National Health Service (NHS) Hospitals. Participants: 38 Obstetric Consultants, 49 registrars and 45 midwives. Methods: Printed questionnaire. Statistical Analysis: Fisher’s Exact test. Results: This largest study of its kind showed almost unbelievably high disconnect between CTG interpretation by experts and participants. 98% - 100% midwives, 80% - 100% Registrars and 74% - 100% Consultants categorized FHR decelerations differently from the five experts’ illustrations/interpretations (p < 0.0001). Remarkably, the three experts’ illustrations of early (supposedly most benign) decelerations were classed as atypical variable by 56% Consultants, 78% Registrars and 99% midwives and the CTGs as pathological by 85% of the participants. Conclusions: The high degree of disagreement with the experts’ illustrations (p < 0.0001) did not appear to be due to participant factors. The immediate reasons seemed to be the conflicting illustrations and heterogeneity of experts’ descriptions. But most importantly, these appeared to stem from non-standardized ambiguous definitions of FHR decelerations and many intrinsic systemic flaws in the current NICE guidelines [4]. The NICE concept of “true uniform” (identical) early and late decelerations seems biologically implausible (a myth) and no examples can be found. Another myth seems to be that early and late decelerations should be gradual. Only very shallow decelerations will look “gradual” on the British CTG. These systemic flaws lead to dysfunctional CTG interpretation increasing intervention as well as impairing diagnosis of fetal hypoxemia. This is because the vast majority of FHR decelerations fall in a single heterogeneous “variable” group with many further classed as “atypical” (pathological) based on disproven and discredited criteria [5-7]. There is increasing evidence in USA that a system with variable decelerations as the majority is clinically unhelpful because of loss of information [5-9]. In the interest of patient care and safety, open debate is necessary regarding a better way forward. Classification of FHR decelerations based primarily and solely on time relationship to contractions appears more scientific and clinically useful.
