Obstetrics & Gynecology Email Alerts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Obstetrics & Gynecology 2004;103:287-293
© 2004 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Banerjee, S.
Right arrow Articles by Steer, P. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Banerjee, S.
Right arrow Articles by Steer, P. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow General obstetrics
Right arrow Labor and operative obstetrics
Right arrow Maternal/fetal physiology
Right arrow Medical complications of pregnancy
Right arrow Obstetric anesthesia
Right arrow Obstetric complications of pregnancy
Right arrow Pediatrics/neonatology

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Maternal Temperature Monitoring During Labor: Concordance and Variability Among Monitoring Sites

Sujoy Banerjee, MD, DCH, Peter Cashman, BSc, PhD, Steve M. Yentis, BSc, MD and Philip J. Steer, BSc, MD

From the Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Neonatology, the Bagrit Centre for Bioengineering, and the Magill Department of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Pain Management, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, 369 Fulham Road, London, United Kingdom.

Address reprint requests to: Dr. S. Banerjee, 4 Bourne Court, New Wanstead, London, E11 2TG; e-mail: sujoybanerjee{at}doctors.org.uk.

OBJECTIVE: Elevated maternal temperature in labor is associated with adverse immediate and long-term neonatal outcomes. Conventional methods of temperature measurement may not reflect the intrauterine temperature, which constitutes the fetal environment. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the most reliable noninvasive method of temperature monitoring in labor that would best reflect changes in intrauterine temperature.

METHODS: Women in labor receiving epidural analgesia had temperature readings taken every 10 seconds from the uterine cavity, ear canal, and skin surface of the leg and abdomen and hourly from the mouth.

RESULTS: Eighteen patients were studied for a mean of 228 minutes (range 56–464 minutes). The best indicator of intrauterine temperature was oral temperature, with a mean intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.6 (95% confidence interval 0.42, 0.77). On average, oral temperature underestimated intrauterine temperature by 0.8°C (95% confidence interval 0.7°C, 1°C). Allowing for this, oral temperature greater than 37.2°C detected an intrauterine temperature greater than 38°C with a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 96%. The intraclass correlation coefficients of all other sites with intrauterine temperature were poor (0.1 or less). As expected, the temperature at all sites increased as labor progressed.

CONCLUSION: Oral temperature, measured carefully, has an acceptable correlation with intrauterine temperature and is recommended for routine detection of maternal pyrexia in labor. Continuous skin and external auditory canal temperature measurements did not correlate well.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-3






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.