| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
ORIGINAL RESEARCH |
From the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Anaesthesiology, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Address reprint requests to: Dan J. Sherman, MD, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zerifin 70300, Israel; E-mail: dsherman{at}netvision.net.il.
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
TOP
 ABSTRACT MATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
METHODS: Maternal heart rates and FHRs during active labor and delivery were simultaneously recorded in 26 parturients with singleton pregnancies in vertex presentation. The FHRs were obtained by an external ultrasound transducer or via a spiral scalp electrode and maternal heart rates by a triple-wire cable with electrocardiographic electrodes attached to the chest. Representative tracings of 30–60 minutes duration were selected from all stages of labor and after delivery of the placenta. Quantitative assessments were carried out under guidelines from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development after blinding the source of these tracings. Patterns were compared by appropriate statistical analyses.
RESULTS: Baseline maternal heart rates were significantly lower and their variability significantly higher than FHRs during all stages of labor. Maternal heart rates showed no decelerations; the proportion of tracings with accelerations increased as labor advanced, most of them coinciding with uterine contractions or bearing down efforts. The FHRs had both decelerations and accelerations. However, tracings with only accelerations (and no decelerations) were observed in decreasing frequency as labor advanced. Maternal accelerations had higher amplitudes and longer durations than fetal accelerations, especially in the second stage of labor.
CONCLUSION: Maternal heart rate patterns recorded by electronic fetal monitors closely resemble fetal patterns. Baseline "fetal bradycardia," the absence of decelerations in the second stage of labor, and marked accelerations coinciding with uterine contractions may suggest a maternal heart rate rather than an FHR recording.
Fetal heart rate (FHR) monitoring is a widely accepted means of evaluating the status of the fetus during labor. There have been many sporadic reports of misinterpretation of the tracings when the maternal heart rate and not the FHR had been recorded, but the tracing was taken as being that of the FHR.1–9 Although the maternal electrocardiogram (ECG) signal is approximately 5–10 times stronger than the fetal one, its amplitude is significantly diminished when it is recorded through a fetal scalp electrode, and it is "ignored" in favor of the stronger fetal ECG. However, in cases of fetal death, the maternal ECG signal may be amplified through the fetal scalp electrode and be displayed spuriously as the FHR.1–3 The possibility of recording the maternal heart rate by an external (ultrasonic) FHR probe has also been reported when the probe was placed over the maternal aorta or great iliac vessels.6,9–12 Maternal heart rate tracings consistent with fetal bradycardia and/or decelerations of FHR may lead to the performance of an unnecessary emergency cesarean delivery.5–8 Conversely, maternal tachycardia or accelerations in heart rate2,4,5 may be falsely reassuring in cases of fetal distress.
Very little is known about maternal heart rate patterns during labor. The purpose of this study was to evaluate maternal heart rate tracings during labor and delivery as recorded by an electronic fetal monitor and to better differentiate them from FHR patterns.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOP
ABSTRACTMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Representative maternal heart rate and FHR tracings of 30–60 minutes duration were randomly selected from the following divisions of labor and delivery: the latent phase of the first stage of labor (from regular uterine contractions until cervical dilatation of 4 cm), the active phase of the first stage (from cervical dilatation of 4 cm and at least 80% cervical effacement until full dilatation), the second stage of labor (from full cervical dilatation until after delivery of the fetal body), and the "third" stage of labor which, for the purposes of this study, was defined as the period after delivery of the placenta. The representative tracings were quantitatively evaluated (visually) without identifiers in 10-minute windows for the following categories: baseline heart rate, baseline variability (ie, from the segment containing the maximal amplitude of the peak-to-trough oscillations in the recorded baseline heart rate), and the presence of periodic changes (ie, accelerations and decelerations of the heart rate) using guidelines from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.13 In addition, the frequency (number per 20 minutes), mean amplitude (beats per minute), and mean duration (seconds) of the periodic changes in heart rate were determined for each tracing.
Statistical comparisons of baseline heart rate and variability and the presence and quantitative indices of the periodic changes were made between maternal and fetal tracings from each stage of labor. Paired analyses of continuous variables were done by the Wilcoxon signed rank test because maternal-fetal differences did not have a normal distribution. Categoric data were analyzed by the McNemar test. P<.05 was considered as statistically significant.
We performed a study of interobserver agreement among three different investigators on a sample of ten randomly selected maternal heart rate and FHR tracings to confirm the reliability of measurements. A 
score14 of 1 was obtained for the presence of periodic changes. Kendall’s W coefficient of concordance15 was 0.991 for baseline heart rate, 0.711 for heart rate variability, and 0.853 for frequency of periodic changes. A score of 1 indicated perfect agreement, whereas 0 showed random agreement.
We performed a PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD) search of English language abstracts from January 1966 to June 2000 using medical subject heading terms "heart rate" and ("pregnancy" or "labor"), limited to "human," "female," and "adult."
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOP
ABSTRACTMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
). The prevalence of periodic changes in the maternal heart rate and FHR tracings is described in Table 2. At no time were there any decelerations in heart rate in the maternal tracings, and the proportion of tracings with accelerations was increased as labor advanced. The majority of maternal heart rate accelerations coincided with uterine contractions and/or bearing-down efforts (Figure 1). After delivery, during the "third" stage, only few tracings contained accelerations in the maternal heart rate (Table 2, Figure 2).
|
|
|
|
). Fetal tracings with accelerations and no decelerations (ie, accelerations only) were observed in decreasing frequency as labor advanced (Table 2). Thus, there were 23% and 12% of FHR tracings with accelerations only during the active phase of the first stage and the second stage of labor, respectively. In contrast, there were 81% and 92% of maternal heart rate tracings with accelerations only during the active phase of the first stage and the second stage of labor, respectively (P< .001). Accelerations in the maternal heart rates occurred more frequently and had a higher mean amplitude than accelerations in the FHRs in the active phase of the first stage and second stage of labor (P < .001, Table 3). The maternal heart rate accelerations were also of a significantly longer mean duration than the FHR accelerations during the second stage.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOP
ABSTRACTMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Our study produced maternal heart rate tracings with a pattern that closely resembles the fetal one, and the nonsuspicious observer may not be able to discriminate between the two. Indeed, when some of these tracings were presented to obstetricians and midwives, the majority did not suspect a maternal source. Our quantitative evaluation showed that the mean baseline maternal heart rate was significantly lower than the mean baseline FHR throughout all stages of labor and delivery and rarely exceeded 110 beats per minute between contractions. Baseline bradycardia had also been the most consistent finding by others in cases of fetal death and transmission of the maternal ECG via the scalp electrode.1,2,5,9 Our data showed that the mean variability of the baseline maternal heart rate was significantly greater than that of the FHR baseline during the first and second stages of labor. However, most maternal values in this study fell within the normal range for FHR variability (5–25 beats per minute), and thus this difference may not be large enough to be discriminatory. Only after the delivery of the placenta was a significant drop noted in the mean variability of the baseline maternal heart rate. This change may be accounted for by the withdrawal of external stimuli and the onset of relaxation, tranquillity, and somnolence, which are highly characteristic of this stage.
Our findings demonstrated that periodic changes—usually accelerations in the maternal heart rate—coincide with uterine contractions and bearing-down efforts. Thus, they were noted in the great majority of maternal tracings during the second stage but in very few tracings after delivery of the placenta (the "third" stage). Quantitatively, these accelerations were very similar to FHR accelerations during the latent phase of the first stage but, as labor progressed, they became more frequent, they had higher amplitudes, and they were of longer duration. Accelerations during uterine contractions, simulating FHR accelerations, were also noted by Odendaal5 in 40% of his cases and in several case reports as well.4,9 These accelerations in the maternal heart rate probably represent the changes in cardiac output during labor. Basal cardiac output (between uterine contractions) had been shown to increase from prelabor values by 12% during the first stage of labor,17 and further increases were noted during uterine contractions.18–20 Cardiac output during contractions increased progressively as labor advanced until the contractions were associated with a mean increase of 34% from basal cardiac output at full cervical dilatation. Although this increase is primarily related to increased cardiac stroke volume early in the first stage of labor, heart rate also increases significantly in the later stages (greater than or equal to 4-cm cervical dilatation).20 These hemodynamic changes during uterine contractions and the associated accelerations in the maternal heart rate probably result from the displacement of blood from the choriodecidual space and an increase in venous return to the heart, as well as an increase in catecholamines release because of pain and other stimuli. The marked accelerations in the maternal heart rate observed during bearing-down efforts may also represent autonomically mediated increases in heart rate and cardiac contractility, which were recorded during the Valsalva maneuver.21
Decelerations in the maternal heart rate during labor have been described in isolated case reports2,6,8 and in only 10% of the cases in Odendaal’s study.5 In our study, however, not one maternal heart rate tracing contained a deceleration pattern. This may be explained by our inclusion criteria (healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies, labor, and delivery) and a study protocol which ensured adequate hydration. Most of the reported cases of maternal heart rate recordings during labor had included ante- or intrapartum fetal deaths with maternal and/or obstetric complications (ie, placental abruption, infection, etc). It is possible that changes in intravascular volume (due to dehydration, bleeding, or other causes) may result in occasional maternal heart rate decelerations. Alternatively, the marked and sustained accelerations in maternal heart rate during uterine contractions may be erroneously interpreted as baseline tachycardia with late decelerations.
In the present study, differences between maternal and fetal heart rate patterns were most prominent during the second stage of labor. We and others22 have noted that the majority of FHR tracings in the second stage contain decelerations, and that accelerations without decelerations may be seen in approximately 10% of the tracings.23 In contrast, more than 90% of our maternal heart rate tracings in the second stage had accelerations coinciding with uterine contractions, whereas no decelerations were observed.
Our study suggests that maternal heart rate and FHR patterns during labor and delivery share strong qualitative and quantitative similarities. In a healthy, well-hydrated woman undergoing uncomplicated labor, the maternal heart rate may be identified by a lower basal heart rate (less than 110 beats per minute) and marked, sustained accelerations coinciding with uterine contractions and bearing-down efforts. However, in cases complicated by dehydration, fever, or anemia, the maternal heart rate pattern may not be distinguishable from the FHR pattern.3 The presence of heart rate accelerations during uterine contractions in the second stage and the absence of heart rate decelerations may also suggest a maternal rather than a fetal recording. Spurious maternal heart rate tracings may be obtained via an external, ultrasound FHR probe or by a scalp electrode of a dead fetus. The true source may be confirmed by comparison of the tracing with the maternal pulse or a simultaneous maternal ECG recording. Alternatively, the recording can be compared with the FHR as picked up by real-time ultrasound imaging.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Received July 5, 2001. Received in revised form November 28, 2001. Accepted December 11, 2001.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOP
ABSTRACTMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
2. Timor-Tritsch I, Gergely Z, Abramovici H, Brandes JM. Misleading information from fetal monitoring in a case of intrapartum fetal death. Obstet Gynecol 1974;43:713–7.
3. McWhinney NA, Knowles S, Green HL, Gordon H. Transmission of the maternal electrocardiograph via a fetal scalp electrode in the presence of intrauterine death. Case report. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1984;91:1046–8.[Medline]
4. Herman A, Ron-El R, Arieli S, Schreyer P, Caspi E. Maternal ECG recorded by internal monitoring closely mimicking fetal heart rate in a recent fetal death. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1990;33:269–71.[Medline]
5. Odendaal HJ. False interpretation of fetal heart role monitoring in cases of intrauterine death. S Afr Med J 1976;50: 1963–5.[Medline]
6. Amato JC. Fetal heart rate monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983;147:967–9.[Medline]
7. Perry CP. Problem with fetal heart rate monitor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;150:111–2.[Medline]
8. Lackritz R, Schiff I, Gibson M, Safon L. Decelerations on fetal electrocardiography with fetal demise. Obstet Gynecol 1978;51:367–8.[Medline]
9. Klapholz H, Schifrin BS, Myrick R. Role of maternal artifact in fetal heart rate pattern interpretation. Obstet Gynecol 1974;44:373–8.
10. Beall MH, Paul RH. Artifacts, blocks, and arrhythmias: Confusing nonclassical heart rate tracings. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1986;29:83–94.[Medline]
11. Hutson JM, Petrie RH. Possible limitations of fetal monitoring. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1986;29:104–13.[Medline]
12. Heinrich J. Pitfalls in FHR monitoring. In: van Geijn HP, Copray FJA, eds. A critical appraisal of fetal surveillance. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V.; 1994: 277–85.
13. NICHD. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring: Research guidelines for interpretation. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Research Planning Workshop. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177:1385–90.[Medline]
14. Fleiss JL. The measurement of interrater agreement. In: Fleiss JL, ed. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1981:212–36.
15. Zar JH. Concordance: Rank correlation among several variables. In: Zar JH, ed. Biostatistical analysis. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1984:352–9.
16. Devoe L, Golde S, Kilman Y, Morton D, Shea K, Waller J. A comparison of visual analyses of intrapartum fetal heart rate tracings according to the new National Institute of Child Health and Human Development guidelines with computer analyses by an automated fetal heart rate monitoring system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:361–6.[Medline]
17. Hunter S, Robson SC. Adaptation of the maternal heart in pregnancy. Br Heart J 1992;68:540–3.[Medline]
18. Ueland K, Hansen JM. Maternal cardiovascular dynamics. 3. Labor and delivery under local and caudal analgesia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1969;103:8–18.[Medline]
19. Kjeldsen J. Hemodynamic investigations during labour and delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl 1979;89: 1–252.[Medline]
20. Robson SC, Dunlop W, Boys RJ, Hunter S. Cardiac output during labour. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987;295: 1169–72.
21. Porth CJ, Bamrah VS, Tristani FE, Smith JJ. The Valsalva maneuver: Mechanisms and clinical implications. Heart Lung 1984;13:507–18.[Medline]
22. Krebs HB, Petres RE, Dunn LJ. Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. V. Fetal heart rate patterns in the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981;140:435–9.[Medline]
23. Piquard F, Hsiung R, Mettauer M, Schaefer A, Haberey P, Dellenbach P. The validity of fetal heart rate monitoring during the second stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1988;72: 746–51.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
