The prognostic accuracy of short term variation of fetal heart rate in early-onset fetal growth restriction: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Cardiotocography (CTG) is an important tool for fetal surveillance in severe early-onset fetal growth restriction (FGR). Assessment of the CTG is usually performed visually (vCTG). However, it is suggested that computerized analysis of the CTG (cCTG) including short term variability (STV) could more accurately detect fetal compromise. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on the association between cCTG and perinatal outcome and the comparison of cCTG with vCTG.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar. Studies were included that assessed prognostic accuracy of STV or compared STV to vCTG in patients with FGR. Risk of bias and concerns about applicability were assessed with the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) instrument.

RESULTS

Of the 885 records identified in the search, five cohort studies (387 patients) were included. We found no randomized studies comparing STV with visual CTG in patients with FGR. The risk of bias of all studies was generally judged as 'low'. One small study found an association of low STV with neonatal acidosis. One study observed no association of STV with long-term outcome. Composite analysis of all five studies showed a non-significant relative risk for acidosis after a low STV of 1.4 (95% CI 0.6-3.2, N = 387). Further meta-analysis was hampered due to heterogeneity in outcome reporting and use of different thresholds.

CONCLUSION

The evidence from the included studies did not support an association of STV and short or long term outcome. However, available data are limited and heterogeneous, and influenced by management based on STV. Solid evidence from a randomized controlled trial comparing STV with vCTG including long term infant outcome is needed before STV can be used clinically for timing of delivery in patients with FGR.

Antithrombotic drug prescription in atrial fibrillation and its rationale among general practitioners, internists and cardiologists in The Netherlands--The EXAMINE-AF study. A questionnaire survey

The objective of the EXAMINE-AF study was to record and compare antithrombotic treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in daily clinical practice of general practitioners, internists and cardiologists in the Netherlands. Eighty-six general practitioners, 93 internists and 99 cardiologists responded to postal questionnaires and enrolled 1596 patients: 365, 351 and 880 respectively. A cardiologist was indicated to be the main treating physician for AF in 82% of all patients; current antithrombotic treatment was initiated in 80% by a cardiologist. Of all patients, 84% were at high risk for stroke and therefore were eligible for oral anticoagulation treatment, but only 64% actually received this. Cardiologists instituted appropriate antithrombotic treatment best, compared with general practitioners and internists (70% vs. 58% and 55%; p < 0.001). Positive predictive factors for oral anticoagulation prescription were previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.33-4.02) and heart failure (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.23-2.42). Contraindications for oral anticoagulation (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.68), treatment by a general practitioner (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.20-0.42) or internist (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.15-0.39) were important factors for withholding treatment. Antithrombotic treatment in AF patients is well instituted in primary and secondary care in the Netherlands. Cardiologists play a key role in the diagnosis and management of the majority of AF patients, even in those regularly attending other physicians. Factors for oral anticoagulation prescription are heart failure, physician specialty and contraindications. Availability of guidelines seems instrumental for application of appropriate antithrombotic treatment.