A cost-effectiveness analysis of the intrapartum fetal pulse oximetry multicentre randomised controlled trial (the FOREMOST trial)

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of fetal scalp blood lactate measurement to reduce caesarean sections during labour: the Flamingo trial [ACTRN12611000172909]

BACKGROUND

The rate of caesarean sections around the world is rising each year, reaching epidemic proportions. Although many caesarean sections are performed for concerns about fetal welfare on the basis of abnormal cardiotocography, the majority of babies are shown to be well at birth, meaning that the operation, with its inherent short and long term risks, could have been avoided without compromising the baby's health. Previously, fetal scalp blood sampling for pH estimation was performed in the context of an abnormal cardiotocograph, to improve the identification of babies in need of expedited delivery. This test has largely been replaced by lactate measurement, although its validity is yet to be established through a randomised controlled trial. This study aims to test the hypothesis that the performance of fetal scalp blood lactate measurement for women in labour with an abnormal cardiotocograph will reduce the rate of birth by caesarean section from 38 % to 25 % (a 35 % relative reduction).

METHODS/DESIGN

Prospective unblinded randomised controlled trial conducted at a single tertiary perinatal centre. Women labouring with a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation at 37 or more weeks' gestation with ruptured membranes and with an abnormal cardiotocograph will be eligible. Participants will be randomised to one of two groups: fetal monitoring by cardiotocography alone, or cardiotocography augmented by fetal scalp blood lactate analysis. Decisions regarding the timing and mode of delivery will be made by the treating team, in accordance with hospital protocols. The primary study endpoint is caesarean section with secondary outcomes collected from maternal, fetal and neonatal clinical course and morbidities. A cost effectiveness analysis will also be performed. A sample size of 600 will provide 90 % power to detect the hypothesised difference in the proportion of women who give birth by caesarean section.

DISCUSSION

This world-first trial is adequately powered to determine the impact of fetal scalp blood lactate measurement on rates of caesarean section. Preventing unnecessary caesarean sections will reduce the health and financial burdens associated with this operation, both in the index and any future pregnancies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12611000172909.

Intrapartum fetal scalp lactate sampling for fetal assessment in the presence of a non-reassuring fetal heart rate trace

BACKGROUND

Fetal scalp blood sampling for lactate estimation may be considered following identification of an abnormal or non-reassuring fetal heart rate pattern. The smaller volume of blood required for this test, compared with the more traditional pH estimation, may improve sampling rates. The appropriate use of this practice mandates systematic review of its safety and clinical effectiveness prior to widespread introduction.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and risks of fetal scalp lactate sampling in the assessment of fetal well-being during labour, compared with no testing or alternative testing.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared fetal scalp lactate testing with no testing or alternative testing to evaluate fetal status in the presence of a non-reassuring cardiotocograph during labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. Two review authors independently assessed the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified two completed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and two ongoing trials. The two published RCTs considered outcomes for 3348 mother-baby pairs allocated to either lactate or pH estimation of fetal blood samples when clinically indicated in labour. Overall, the published RCTs were of low or unclear risk of bias. There was a high risk of performance bias, because it would not have been feasible to blind clinicians or participants.No statistically significant between-group differences were found for neonatal encephalopathy (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 3.09, one study, 2992 infants) or death. No studies reported neonatal seizures. We had planned to report death with other morbidities, for example, neonatal encephalopathy; however, the data were not available in a format suitable for this, therefore death due to congenital abnormality was considered alone. The three reported neonatal deaths occurred in babies with diaphragmatic hernias (n = 2) or congenital cardiac fibrosis (n = 1). All three babies had been randomised to the pH group and were not acidaemic at birth.There were no statistically significant differences for any of the pre-specified secondary fetal/neonatal/infant outcomes for which data were available. This included low Apgar score at five minutes (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.68, two studies, 3319 infants) and admission to neonatal intensive care units (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.25, one study, 2992 infants), or metabolic acidaemia (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36, one study, 2675 infants) considered within the studies, either overall or where data were available for those where fetal blood sampling had occurred within 60 minutes of delivery.Similar proportions of fetuses underwent additional tests to further evaluate well-being during labour, including scalp pH if in the lactate group or scalp lactate if in the pH group (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.30, two studies, 3333 infants;Tau² 1.00, I² = 58%). Fetal blood sampling attempts for lactate and pH estimation were successful in 98.7% and 79.4% of procedures respectively in the one study that reported this outcome.There were no significant between-group differences in mode of birth or operative birth for non-reassuring fetal status, either for all women, or within the group where the fetal blood sample had been taken within 60 minutes of delivery (for example, caesarean section for all enrolled, RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.22, two studies, 3319 women; operative delivery for non-reassuring fetal status for all enrolled RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11, one study, 2992 women).Neither study reported on adverse effects of fetal scalp lacerations or maternal anxiety.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When further testing to assess fetal well-being in labour is indicated, fetal scalp blood lactate estimation is more likely to be successfully undertaken than pH estimation. Further studies may consider subgroup analysis by gestational age, the stage of labour and sampling within a prolonged second stage of labour. Additionally, we await the findings from the ongoing studies that compare allocation to no fetal blood sample with sampling for lactate and address longer-term neonatal outcomes, maternal satisfaction with intrapartum fetal monitoring and an economic analysis.

Fetal pulse oximetry for fetal assessment in labour

BACKGROUND

The use of conventional cardiotocographic (CTG) monitoring of fetal well-being during labour is associated with an increased caesarean section rate, compared with intermittent auscultation of the fetal heart rate, resulting in a reduction in neonatal seizures, although no differences in other neonatal outcomes. To improve the sensitivity of this test and therefore reduce the number of caesarean sections performed for nonreassuring fetal status, several additional measures of evaluating fetal well-being have been considered. These have demonstrated some effect on reducing caesarean section rates, for example, fetal scalp blood sampling for pH estimation/lactate measurement. The adaptation of pulse oximetry for use in the unborn fetus could potentially contribute to improved evaluation during labour and therefore lead to a reduction in caesarean sections for nonreassuring fetal status, without any change in neonatal outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of fetal intrapartum pulse oximetry with other surveillance techniques.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2014), contacted experts in the field and searched reference lists of retrieved studies. In previous versions of this review, we performed additional searches of MEDLINE, Embase and Current Contents. These searches were discontinued for this review update, as they consistently failed to identify any trials that were not shown in the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that compared maternal and fetal outcomes when fetal pulse oximetry was used in labour, (i) with or without concurrent use of conventional fetal surveillance, that is, cardiotocography (CTG), compared with using CTG alone or (ii) with or without concurrent use of both CTG and other method(s) of fetal surveillance, such as fetal electrocardiography (ECG) plus CTG.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two independent review authors performed data extraction. We sought additional information from the investigators of three of the reported trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven published trials: six comparing fetal pulse oximetry and CTG with CTG alone (or when fetal pulse oximetry values were blinded) and one comparing fetal pulse oximetry plus CTG with fetal ECG plus CTG. The published trials, with some unpublished data, were at high risk of bias in terms of the impractical nature of blinding participants and clinicians, as well as high risk or unclear risk of bias for outcome assessor for all but one report. Selection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias and other sources of bias were of low or unclear risk. The trials reported on a total of 8013 pregnancies. Differing entry criteria necessitated separate analyses, rather than meta-analysis of all trials.Systematic review of four trials from 34 weeks not requiring fetal blood sampling (FBS) prior to study entry showed no evidence of differences in the overall caesarean section rate between those monitored with fetal oximetry and those not monitored with fetal pulse oximetry or for whom the fetal pulse oximetry results were masked (average risk ratio (RR) 0.99 using random-effects, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.86 to 1.13, n = 4008, I² = 45%). There was evidence of a higher risk of caesarean section in the group with fetal oximetry plus CTG than in the group with fetal ECG plus CTG (one study, n = 180, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.29). Neonatal seizures and neonatal encephalopathy were rare in both groups. No studies reported details of long-term disability.There was evidence of a decrease in caesarean section for nonreassuring fetal status in the fetal pulse oximetry plus CTG group compared to the CTG group, gestation from 34 weeks (average RR (random-effects) 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.90, n = 4008, I² = 63%). There was no evidence of differences between groups in caesarean section for dystocia, although the overall incidence rates varied between the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of fetal pulse oximetry does not reduce overall caesarean section rates. One study found a higher caesarean section rate in the group monitored with fetal pulse oximetry plus CTG, compared with fetal ECG plus CTG. The data provide limited support for the use of fetal pulse oximetry when used in the presence of a nonreassuring CTG, to reduce caesarean section for nonreassuring fetal status. A better method than pulse oximetry is required to enhance the overall evaluation of fetal well-being in labour.

Fetal pulse oximetry during labor: theory, clinical use and the future

Fetal pulse oximetry (FPO) has evolved through various phases of technical development and calibration. Clinical studies have addressed the issue of determining threshold action values and how well the technology is accepted by childbearing women and their caregivers. This article considers a variety of situations and factors that commonly occur during labor and that may influence fetal oximetry values. These include uterine contractions, supplemental oxygen and intravenous fluids administered to the mother, maternal position and epidural analgesia. The five randomized, controlled trials that compared the use of FPO in addition to fetal heart-rate monitoring with fetal heart-rate monitoring alone, have been systematically reviewed and subjected to meta-analysis where appropriate. Current clinical practice guidelines do not support the routine use of FPO; however, the recent emergence of robust multiwavelength oximeters may, in the future, offer further clinical applications for FPO.

Intrapartum oximetry of the fetus

Fetal monitoring during labor aims to identify fetal problems which, if uncorrected, may result in morbidity or death. A nonreassuring or abnormal fetal heart rate trace by cardiotocography (CTG) does not necessarily equate with fetal hypoxia and/or acidosis. However, in the absence of more objective data, the use of CTG often results in variable, but inappropriately high, operative delivery rates (forceps, vacuum, or cesarean delivery) for nonreassuring fetal status in many hospitals. The addition of fetal pulse oximetry (FPO) has the potential to improve the assessment of fetal well-being during labor. In this review we consider several aspects of FPO. Several factors, such as sensor to skin contact, uterine contractions, fetal hair, and caput succedaneum, influence the performance and use of FPO. Issues such as clinicians' perspectives of FPO sensor placement, maternal perspectives of FPO during labor, and an economic analysis have all favored FPO. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of FPO reported a reduction in cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status when FPO was added to conventional CTG monitoring, with no difference in overall cesarean delivery rates. One large RCT reported no difference in mode of birth for any indication. Several issues relevant to the future of FPO have been addressed by these RCTs, the major issue being that it makes no difference to cesarean rates. It may be argued that FPO has a valid clinical use in monitoring the fetus with congenital heart block. Additionally, in situations of nonreassuring fetal status and dystocia, FPO may provide the necessary reassurance until adequate resources for cesarean delivery are available.

[Fetal pulse oxymetry]

Labor is monitored to avoid per partum asphyxia and its consequences. Cardiotocography enables asphyxia detection but carries unuseful cesarean sections. When cardiotocography is not reassuring, fetal pulse oxymetry makes it possible to reduce cesarean section rate for non-reassuring fetal status. Nevertheless, there is an increased number of cesarean sections for dystocia that could be due to the presence of the oxygen sensor itself. A global reduction is mainly observed when oxymetry is associated with fetal blood sampling for pH measurement. In this case, oxymetry also makes it possible to reduce the number of necessary samplings.

Fetal pulse oximetry for fetal assessment in labour

BACKGROUND

Pulse oximetry could contribute to the evaluation of fetal well-being during labour.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of fetal pulse oximetry with conventional surveillance techniques.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (November 2006), MEDLINE (1994 to November 2006), EMBASE (1994 to November 2006) and Current Contents (1994 to November 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that compared maternal and fetal outcomes when fetal pulse oximetry was used in labour, with or without concurrent use of conventional fetal surveillance, compared with using cardiotocography (CTG) alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two independent authors performed data extraction. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. We sought additional information from the investigators of three of the reported trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Five published trials comparing fetal pulse oximetry and CTG with CTG alone (or when fetal pulse oximetry values were blinded) were included. The published trials, with some unpublished data, reported on a total of 7424 pregnancies. Differing entry criteria necessitated separate analyses, rather than meta-analysis of all trials. Four trials reported no significant differences in the overall caesarean section rate between those monitored with fetal oximetry and those not monitored with fetal pulse oximetry or for whom the fetal pulse oximetry results were masked. Neonatal seizures and hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy were rare. No studies reported details of assessment of long-term disability. There was a statistically significant decrease in caesarean section for nonreassuring fetal status in the fetal pulse oximetry plus CTG group compared to the CTG group in two analyses: (i) gestation from 36 weeks with fetal blood sample (fetal blood sampling) not required prior to study entry (relative risk (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.99); and (ii) when fetal blood sampling was required prior to study entry (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.44). There was no statistically significant difference in caesarean section for dystocia when fetal pulse oximetry (fetal pulse oximetry) was added to CTG monitoring, compared with CTG monitoring alone, although the incidence rates varied between the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The data provide limited support for the use of fetal pulse oximetry when used in the presence of a nonreassuring CTG, to reduce caesarean section for nonreassuring fetal status. The addition of fetal pulse oximetry does not reduce overall caesarean section rates. A better method to evaluate fetal well-being in labour is required.