ST waveform analysis versus cardiotocography alone for intrapartum fetal monitoring: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Introduction - ST waveform analysis (STAN) was introduced as an adjunct to cardiotocography (CTG) to improve neonatal and maternal outcomes. The aim of the present study was to quantify the efficacy of STAN vs CTG and assess the quality of the evidence using GRADE. Material and methods - We performe...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica
Main Authors: Blix, Ellen, Brurberg, Kjetil Gundro, Reierth, Eirik, Reinar, Liv Merete Brynildsen, Øian, Pål
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 01-03-2024
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction - ST waveform analysis (STAN) was introduced as an adjunct to cardiotocography (CTG) to improve neonatal and maternal outcomes. The aim of the present study was to quantify the efficacy of STAN vs CTG and assess the quality of the evidence using GRADE. Material and methods - We performed systematic literature searches to identify randomized controlled trials and assessed included studies for risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses, calculating pooled risk ratio (RR) or Peto odds ratio (OR). We also performed post hoc trial sequential analyses for selected outcomes to assess the risk of false-positive results and the need for additional studies. Results - Nine randomized controlled trials including 28 729 women were included in the meta-analysis. There were no differences between the groups in operative deliveries for fetal distress (10.9 vs 11.1%; RR 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82–1.11). STAN was associated with a significantly lower rate of metabolic acidosis (0.45% vs 0.68%; Peto OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.48–0.90). Accordingly, 441 women need to be monitored with STAN instead of CTG alone to prevent one case of metabolic acidosis. Women allocated to STAN had a reduced risk of fetal blood sampling compared with women allocated to conventional CTG monitoring (12.5% vs 19.6%; RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.49–0.80). The quality of the evidence was high to moderate.<p< Conclusions - Absolute effects of STAN were minor and the clinical significance of the observed reduction in metabolic acidosis is questioned. There is insufficient evidence to state that STAN as an adjunct to CTG leads to important clinical benefits compared with CTG alone.
Bibliography:Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
ISSN:1600-0412
0001-6349
1600-0412
DOI:10.1111/aogs.14752