PubMed1999
Potentially significant intrapartum fetal asphyxia occurs in approximately 20 per 1000 births. Moderate and severe fetal asphyxia exposure with newborn morbidity occurs in 3 to 4 1000 births, with brain damage and subsequent disability in at least 1 per 1000 births. Although the prevalence of moderate and severe asphyxia is modest, prevention is important because of the serious implications of this complication to the child, family, and society. Because of the limited predictive value of clinical risk factors, the interpretation of patterns in a fetal heart rate record has become the primary screening test for intrapartum fetal asphyxia. Despite extensive clinic experience and numerous clinical trials, the benefits of EFM as a screening test have not been established, and harm may occur owing to unnecessary intervention. This observation raises serious ethical issues. When an intervention is initiated by the clinician rather than the patient, the clinician under greater obligation to ensure that the benefits outweigh the harm. Several factors complicate the demonstration of benefits of EFM as a screening test. There is no consensus regarding a protocol of fetal surveillance for low-risk patient who account for approximately 25% of intrapartum fetal asphyxia. Moderate and severe asphyxia cannot be prevented when asphyxial exposure has occurred before labor or before the onset of fetal surveillance. Prediction of intrapartum fetal asphyxia cannot occur when the quality of the record does not permit interpretation. Interpretation of predictive fetal heart rate patterns cannot occur unless the record is consistently and carefully scored. Prediction of most cases of intrapartum fetal asphyxia on the basis of fetal heart rate patterns is possible but difficult. Because the goal of intrapartum fetal surveillance is the prevention of moderate and severe fetal asphyxia, prediction must be achieved before fetal decompensation. Prediction must occur before absent baseline fetal heart rate variability evident in the record, which is uniformly associated with cerebral dysfunction and, in some cases, brain damage. The possibility of fetal asphyxia must be considered when, within a 1-hour window of recording, there are two or more cycles of minimal baseline fetal heart rate variability and two or more cycles of late or prolonged decelerations or both. Because approximately 9 of 10 predictive fetal heart rate patterns are false-positive, supplementary tests to confirm the diagnosis and to identify false-positives to prevent unnecessary intervention are essential. Until such time as additional fetal assessment tests are validated, blood gas and acid-base assessment of fetal blood can provide a definitive diagnosis and identify false-positive predictions.