数字胎儿头皮刺激与胎儿血液取样评估分娩胎儿健康:一项多中心随机对照试验

IF 4.7 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Sahr Yambasu, Fiona Boland, Keelin O'Donoghue, Colleen Curran, Yulia Shahabuddin, Amanda Cotter, Geraldine Gaffney, Declan Devane, Eleanor J. Molloy, Deirdre J. Murphy
{"title":"数字胎儿头皮刺激与胎儿血液取样评估分娩胎儿健康:一项多中心随机对照试验","authors":"Sahr Yambasu,&nbsp;Fiona Boland,&nbsp;Keelin O'Donoghue,&nbsp;Colleen Curran,&nbsp;Yulia Shahabuddin,&nbsp;Amanda Cotter,&nbsp;Geraldine Gaffney,&nbsp;Declan Devane,&nbsp;Eleanor J. Molloy,&nbsp;Deirdre J. Murphy","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.18068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To establish whether digital foetal scalp stimulation (dFSS) performs better than foetal blood sampling (FBS) in terms of reducing the rate of caesarean section (CS) in labour, without adversely affecting perinatal outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>A multicentre parallel-group randomised controlled trial.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting</h3>\n \n <p>Maternity centres in Ireland.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Population</h3>\n \n <p>The study aimed to randomise 2500 nulliparous women who required a second-line test of foetal well-being in labour due to abnormal cardiotocography (CTG).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Participants were randomly allocated to dFSS or FBS in a 1:1 ratio. Analysis was according to the published protocol and included a meta-analysis of the pilot study data and trial data.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Outcome Measures</h3>\n \n <p>The primary outcome was CS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Due to lower-than-expected randomisations, the trial concluded early. Of 534 consented participants, 124 had a second-line test of foetal well-being in labour and 43 (34.7%) were randomised; 20 to dFSS and 23 to FBS. The rate of CS was 40.0% (8/20) in the dFSS group and 47.8% (11/23) in the FBS group (absolute difference 7.8%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.22–2.44). The rate of CS was lower in the dFSS group when the trial data were included in a meta-analysis with the pilot data (<i>n</i> = 50), although the confidence limits were wide (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17–0.96). There was no significant difference in rates of adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes. Of the nonrandomised participants who received a second-line test, 65% (53/81) received dFSS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The small sample size limits the ability to conclude whether dFSS performs better as a second-line test of foetal well-being in labour than FBS. A clinician preference for dFSS was apparent, even though robust evidence is lacking.</p>\n \n <p><b>Trial Registration:</b> This trial was prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on the 31st of March 2022. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05306756 (Access at https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05306756?cond=fetal%20blood%20sampling&amp;rank=3)</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"132 5","pages":"557-564"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1471-0528.18068","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digital Foetal Scalp Stimulation Versus Foetal Blood Sampling to Assess Foetal Well-Being in Labour: A Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial\",\"authors\":\"Sahr Yambasu,&nbsp;Fiona Boland,&nbsp;Keelin O'Donoghue,&nbsp;Colleen Curran,&nbsp;Yulia Shahabuddin,&nbsp;Amanda Cotter,&nbsp;Geraldine Gaffney,&nbsp;Declan Devane,&nbsp;Eleanor J. Molloy,&nbsp;Deirdre J. Murphy\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1471-0528.18068\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To establish whether digital foetal scalp stimulation (dFSS) performs better than foetal blood sampling (FBS) in terms of reducing the rate of caesarean section (CS) in labour, without adversely affecting perinatal outcomes.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Design</h3>\\n \\n <p>A multicentre parallel-group randomised controlled trial.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Setting</h3>\\n \\n <p>Maternity centres in Ireland.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Population</h3>\\n \\n <p>The study aimed to randomise 2500 nulliparous women who required a second-line test of foetal well-being in labour due to abnormal cardiotocography (CTG).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Participants were randomly allocated to dFSS or FBS in a 1:1 ratio. Analysis was according to the published protocol and included a meta-analysis of the pilot study data and trial data.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main Outcome Measures</h3>\\n \\n <p>The primary outcome was CS.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Due to lower-than-expected randomisations, the trial concluded early. Of 534 consented participants, 124 had a second-line test of foetal well-being in labour and 43 (34.7%) were randomised; 20 to dFSS and 23 to FBS. The rate of CS was 40.0% (8/20) in the dFSS group and 47.8% (11/23) in the FBS group (absolute difference 7.8%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.22–2.44). The rate of CS was lower in the dFSS group when the trial data were included in a meta-analysis with the pilot data (<i>n</i> = 50), although the confidence limits were wide (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17–0.96). There was no significant difference in rates of adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes. Of the nonrandomised participants who received a second-line test, 65% (53/81) received dFSS.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The small sample size limits the ability to conclude whether dFSS performs better as a second-line test of foetal well-being in labour than FBS. A clinician preference for dFSS was apparent, even though robust evidence is lacking.</p>\\n \\n <p><b>Trial Registration:</b> This trial was prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on the 31st of March 2022. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05306756 (Access at https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05306756?cond=fetal%20blood%20sampling&amp;rank=3)</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50729,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology\",\"volume\":\"132 5\",\"pages\":\"557-564\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1471-0528.18068\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.18068\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.18068","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

确定数字胎儿头皮刺激(dFSS)在降低分娩剖宫产率(CS)方面是否优于胎儿血液取样(FBS),而不会对围产期结局产生不利影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Digital Foetal Scalp Stimulation Versus Foetal Blood Sampling to Assess Foetal Well-Being in Labour: A Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial

Digital Foetal Scalp Stimulation Versus Foetal Blood Sampling to Assess Foetal Well-Being in Labour: A Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial

Objective

To establish whether digital foetal scalp stimulation (dFSS) performs better than foetal blood sampling (FBS) in terms of reducing the rate of caesarean section (CS) in labour, without adversely affecting perinatal outcomes.

Design

A multicentre parallel-group randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Maternity centres in Ireland.

Population

The study aimed to randomise 2500 nulliparous women who required a second-line test of foetal well-being in labour due to abnormal cardiotocography (CTG).

Methods

Participants were randomly allocated to dFSS or FBS in a 1:1 ratio. Analysis was according to the published protocol and included a meta-analysis of the pilot study data and trial data.

Main Outcome Measures

The primary outcome was CS.

Results

Due to lower-than-expected randomisations, the trial concluded early. Of 534 consented participants, 124 had a second-line test of foetal well-being in labour and 43 (34.7%) were randomised; 20 to dFSS and 23 to FBS. The rate of CS was 40.0% (8/20) in the dFSS group and 47.8% (11/23) in the FBS group (absolute difference 7.8%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.22–2.44). The rate of CS was lower in the dFSS group when the trial data were included in a meta-analysis with the pilot data (n = 50), although the confidence limits were wide (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17–0.96). There was no significant difference in rates of adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes. Of the nonrandomised participants who received a second-line test, 65% (53/81) received dFSS.

Conclusions

The small sample size limits the ability to conclude whether dFSS performs better as a second-line test of foetal well-being in labour than FBS. A clinician preference for dFSS was apparent, even though robust evidence is lacking.

Trial Registration: This trial was prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on the 31st of March 2022. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05306756 (Access at https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05306756?cond=fetal%20blood%20sampling&rank=3)

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
5.20%
发文量
345
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BJOG is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). The Journal publishes original, peer-reviewed work in all areas of obstetrics and gynaecology, including contraception, urogynaecology, fertility, oncology and clinical practice. Its aim is to publish the highest quality medical research in women''s health, worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信