Birth Outcomes, Intervention Frequency, and the Disappearing Midwife-Potential Hazards of Central Fetal Monitoring: A Single Center Review.

INTRODUCTION

Many birth units use central fetal monitoring (CFM) under the assumption that greater surveillance improves perinatal outcomes. The unexpected loss of the CFM system at a tertiary unit provided a unique opportunity to evaluate outcomes and staff attitudes toward CFM.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study compared patient data from 2,855 electronically monitored women delivering over a 12-month period, where CFM was available for the first 6 months but unavailable for the following 6 months. Primary outcomes relating to neonatal morbidity and secondary outcomes relating to intrapartum interventions were examined. Additionally, birth unit staff members were surveyed about aspects of care related to CFM.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in perinatal outcomes between the cohorts. While unadjusted analysis suggested a lower spontaneous vaginal birth rate (55.4% vs 60.3%) and a higher cesarean delivery rate (25.1% vs 22.0%, p = 0.026), together with higher epidural (53.0% vs 49.2%, p = 0.04) and fetal blood sampling (11.8% vs 9.4%, p = 0.03) rates in the presence of CFM, these differences were lost when adjusted for prostaglandin ripening. Over half of the staff (56.0% of midwives, 54.0% of obstetricians) reported spending more time with the laboring woman in the period without CFM.

CONCLUSIONS

This single institution's experience indicates that in birth units staffed for one-to-one care in labor, central fetal monitoring does not appear to be associated with either a benefit on perinatal outcomes or an increase in cesarean delivery and other interventions. However, it is associated with a reduction in the time a midwife spends with the laboring woman.