Skip header and navigation

3 records – page 1 of 1.

Problems in the clinical use of intrapartum fetal ECG monitoring.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature64763
Source
J Perinat Med. 1994;22(3):195-204
Publication Type
Article
Date
1994
Author
J E Cockburn
J M Pearce
G V Chamberlain
Author Affiliation
St Georges Hospital Medical School, London, U.K.
Source
J Perinat Med. 1994;22(3):195-204
Date
1994
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Cardiotocography
Comparative Study
Electrocardiography - instrumentation - methods - standards
Electrodes
Female
Fetal Monitoring - instrumentation - methods - standards
Humans
Pregnancy
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Time Factors
Abstract
Commercial machines are now available to monitor the fetal electrocardiograph in labour (Cinventa, Sweden). We report our experience of the first one hundred women we monitored by this method. They were divided into five groups dictated by the change in the fetal scalp electrode used for monitoring and the changes made in the computer software used for signal processing. There were progressive significant improvements in the ability of the system to produce a continuous heart rate trace such that it became acceptable for routine fetal monitoring. The quality of the electrocardiogram improved to 50% of the 'check ECG complexes' being printed accurately. Electrical signal distortion causing baseline wander is however the significant remaining problem. On-line analysis of the T/QRS ratio improved very significantly from 36% to 84% of the monitoring time. There were no significant improvements in the recordings made in the second stage, which remained poorer in quality and reliability in all groups. As well as changes in the computer software, the use of a single helix electrode and practical experience contributed to the improvements.
PubMed ID
7823259 View in PubMed
Less detail

Project on perinatal monitoring. Symposium on new methods in perinatology. May 7th-8th 1984. Copenhagen, Denmark. Summaries of presented papers and panel discussions.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature65672
Source
J Perinat Med. 1984;12(5):223-83
Publication Type
Article
Date
1984
Source
J Perinat Med. 1984;12(5):223-83
Date
1984
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Female
Fetal Monitoring - instrumentation - methods
Humans
Pregnancy
PubMed ID
6491860 View in PubMed
Less detail

STAN, a clinical audit: the outcome of 2 years of regular use in the city of Varberg, Sweden.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature162656
Source
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(7):827-32
Publication Type
Article
Date
2007
Author
Anna-Karin Welin
Håkan Norén
Anders Odeback
Mona Andersson
Gunnel Andersson
K G Rosén
Author Affiliation
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Varberg Hospital, Varberg, Sweden. anna-karin.welin@telia.com
Source
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(7):827-32
Date
2007
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Apgar score
Female
Fetal Blood - chemistry
Fetal Distress - diagnosis
Fetal Monitoring - instrumentation - methods
Heart Rate, Fetal - physiology
Humans
Infant, Newborn
Medical Audit
Pregnancy
Pregnancy outcome
Retrospective Studies
Sweden
Abstract
To monitor and analyze (audit) the introduction of the STAN methodology in a district hospital.
Retrospective study covering the total population of deliveries at term during 2004 and 2005.
1,875 out of 3,193 term pregnancies (59%) were monitored using the STAN fetal heart monitor (Neoventa Medical, Moelndal, Sweden) and the associated clinical guidelines. Cord metabolic acidosis, neonatal outcome, and rates of operative deliveries for fetal distress were recorded.
The overall cesarean section rate was significantly reduced in the STAN group. Emergency (crash) cesarean sections were significantly reduced from 1.51% to 0.27% in the cardiotocography- and STAN-monitored groups, respectively (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.49). When cesarean section was performed only because of non-reassuring cardiotocography, cord acid base was significantly higher, 7.26 versus 7.19 (p
PubMed ID
17611828 View in PubMed
Less detail