jagomart
digital resources
picture1_Thermal Analysis Pdf 10640 | Ctg Vs Ekg | Ilmu Kesehatan


 177x       Tipe PDF       Ukuran file 0.20 MB    


File: Thermal Analysis Pdf 10640 | Ctg Vs Ekg | Ilmu Kesehatan
fetal electrocardiogram ecg for fetal monitoring during labour review neilson jp thisisareprintofacochranereview preparedandmaintained bythecochranecollaborationandpublishedinthecochranelibrary 2007 issue 2 http www thecochranelibrary com fetal electrocardiogram ecg for fetal monitoring during labour review ...

icon picture PDF Filetype PDF | Diposting 01 Jul 2022 | 3 thn lalu
Berikut sebagian tangkapan teks file ini.
Geser ke kiri pada layar.
                           Fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) for fetal monitoring during
                                                                           labour (Review)
                                                                                     Neilson JP
                       ThisisareprintofaCochranereview,preparedandmaintained byTheCochraneCollaborationandpublishedinTheCochraneLibrary
                       2007, Issue 2
                                                                          http://www.thecochranelibrary.com
                       Fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) for fetal monitoring during labour (Review)                                                                1
                       Copyright©2007 The CochraneCollaboration.Published byJohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd
                                                                                                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                  ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                     1
                                  PLAINLANGUAGESUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                         2
                                  BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                       2
                                  OBJECTIVES                  .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             3
                                  CRITERIAFORCONSIDERINGSTUDIESFORTHISREVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                           3
                                  SEARCHMETHODSFORIDENTIFICATIONOFSTUDIES                                                                    .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             3
                                  METHODSOFTHEREVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                         3
                                  DESCRIPTIONOFSTUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                       4
                                  METHODOLOGICALQUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                        4
                                  RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                    4
                                  DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                     4
                                  AUTHORS’CONCLUSIONS                                    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             4
                                  POTENTIALCONFLICTOFINTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                        5
                                  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                                  .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             5
                                  SOURCESOFSUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                       5
                                  REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                     5
                                  TABLES             .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             7
                                          Characteristics of included studies                    .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             7
                                          Characteristics of excluded studies                    .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             9
                                          Characteristics of ongoing studies                     .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             9
                                  ANALYSES                .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .             9
                                          Comparison 01. Fetal ECG plus CTG versus CTG alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                     9
                                  INDEXTERMS                       .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .            10
                                  COVERSHEET                       .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .            10
                                  GRAPHSANDOTHERTABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                                                                        11
                                          Analysis 01.01. Comparison 01 Fetal ECG plus CTG versus CTG alone, Outcome 01 Perinatal death                                                                    .   .    .   .    .            11
                                          Analysis 01.02. Comparison 01 Fetal ECG plus CTG versus CTG alone, Outcome 02 Neonatal encephalopathy . .                                                                                       12
                                          Analysis 01.04. Comparison 01 Fetal ECG plus CTG versus CTG alone, Outcome 04 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes .                                                                                    13
                                          Analysis 01.05. Comparison 01 Fetal ECG plus CTG versus CTG alone, Outcome 05 Cord pH < 7.05 + base deficit >                                                                                    14
                                                  12 mmol/L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                          Analysis 01.06. Comparison 01 Fetal ECG plus CTG versus CTG alone, Outcome 06 Cord artery pH < 7.05 . . .                                                                                       15
                                          Analysis 01.07. Comparison 01 Fetal ECG plus CTG versus CTG alone, Outcome 07 Cord artery pH < 7.15 . . .                                                                                       16
                                          Analysis 01.08. Comparison 01 Fetal ECG plus CTG versus CTG alone, Outcome 08 Neonatal intubation                                                                         .   .    .            17
                                          Analysis 01.09. Comparison 01 Fetal ECG plus CTG versus CTG alone, Outcome 09 Admission neonatal special care                                                                                   18
                                                  unit      .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .   .    .   .    .   .    .   .
                                          Analysis 01.10. Comparison 01 Fetal ECG plus CTG versus CTG alone, Outcome 10 Caesarean section                                                                      .    .   .    .            19
                                          Analysis 01.11. Comparison 01 Fetal ECG plus CTG versus CTG alone, Outcome 11 Operative vaginal delivery                                                                           .            20
                                          Analysis 01.12. Comparison 01 Fetal ECG plus CTG versus CTG alone, Outcome 12 All operative deliveries .                                                                      .    .            21
                                          Analysis 01.13. Comparison 01 Fetal ECG plus CTG versus CTG alone, Outcome 13 Fetal blood sampling                                                                        .   .    .            22
                                  Fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) for fetal monitoring during labour (Review)                                                                                                                                  i
                                  Copyright©2007 The CochraneCollaboration.Published byJohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd
                       Fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) for fetal monitoring during
                       labour (Review)
                       Neilson JP
                       This record should be cited as:
                       Neilson JP. Fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) for fetal monitoring during labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3.
                       Art. No.: CD000116. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000116.pub2.
                       This version first published online: 19 July 2006 in Issue 3, 2006.
                       Date of most recent substantive amendment: 06 April 2006
                                                                                  ABSTRACT
                       Background
                       Hypoxaemia during labour can alter the shape of the fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) waveform, notably the relation of the PR to
                       RR intervals, and elevation or depression of the ST segment. Technical systems have therefore been developed to monitor the fetal
                       ECGduring labour as an adjunct to continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring with the aim of improving fetal outcome and
                       minimising unnecessary obstetric interference.
                       Objectives
                       To compare the effects of analysis of fetal ECG waveforms during labour with alternative methods of fetal monitoring.
                       Search strategy
                       WesearchedtheCochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (April 2006).
                       Selection criteria
                       Randomised trials comparing fetal ECG waveform analysis with alternative methods of fetal monitoring during labour.
                       Data collection and analysis
                       Trial quality assessment and data extraction were performed by the review author, without blinding.
                       Main results
                       Four trials including a total of 9829 women were included. In comparison to continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring alone,
                       the use of adjunctive ST waveform analysis (three trials, 8872 women) was associated with fewer babies with severe metabolic acidosis
                       at birth (cord pH less than 7.05 and base deficit greater than 12 mmol/L) (relative risk (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41
                       to 1.00, data from 8108 babies), fewer babies with neonatal encephalopathy (three trials, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.95) although
                       the absolute number of babies with encephalopathy was low (n = 17), fewer fetal scalp samples during labour (three trials, RR 0.76,
                       95% CI 0.67 to 0.86) and fewer operative vaginal deliveries (three trials, RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.96). There was no statistically
                       significant difference in caesarean section (three trials, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11), Apgar score less than seven at five minutes
                       (three trials, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.14), or admissions to special care unit (three trials, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.08). Apart
                       fromatrend towards feweroperative deliveries (one trial, RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.01), there was little evidence that monitoring by
                       PRinterval analysis conveyed any benefit.
                       Authors’ conclusions
                       ThesefindingsprovidesomesupportfortheuseoffetalSTwaveformanalysiswhenadecisionhasbeenmadetoundertakecontinuous
                       electronic fetal heart rate monitoring during labour. However, the advantages need to be considered along with the disadvantages of
                       needing to use an internal scalp electrode, after membrane rupture, for ECG waveform recordings.
                       Fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) for fetal monitoring during labour (Review)                                                                1
                       Copyright©2007 The CochraneCollaboration.Published byJohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd
                        PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
                        Monitoring the baby’s heart using electrocardiography (ECG) plus cardiotocography (CTG) during labour helps mothers and babies
                        whencontinuous monitoring is needed
                        Electronic heart monitoring may be suggested if doctors think the baby is not getting enough oxygen during labour. Two methods may
                        be used. CTG measures the baby’s heart rate. ECG measures the heart’s electrical activity and the pattern of the heart beats. ECG uses
                        anelectrode,passed through thewoman’s cervix, and attached to the baby’s head. The review of trials found that using ECG plus CTG
                        results in fewer blood samples taken from the baby’s scalp, less surgical assistance and better oxygen levels at birth than CTG alone.
                        BACKGROUND                                                              ischaemic encephalopathy due to hypoxaemic brain damage and
                                                                                                may be linked to subsequent neuro-developmental disability, in-
                        Labour poses a potential threat to fetal wellbeing. The supply of       cluding cerebral palsy. It should therefore be an important goal of
                        oxygen to the fetus requires an adequate supply of maternal blood       obstetric care to avoid neonatal convulsions. However, it is also
                        to the placenta, a properly functioning placenta to allow transfer      important to avoid unnecessary obstetric intervention.
                        of oxygen from maternal to fetal blood, and a patent umbilical          Cardiotocographic traces maybedifficulttointerpret,resultingin
                        vein in the umbilical cord to the fetus. Strong uterine contractions    unnecessaryoperativeintervention,whilesomesignificantchanges
                        in labour stop the flow of maternal blood to the placenta with           go unrecognised (Ennis 1990). Computerised cardiotocography
                        intermittentdecreasesinoxygenation.Mostfetuseshavesufficient             has not proved helpful during labour (Dawes 1994). However,
                        metabolic reserve to withstand this effect but those with limited       there is some evidence that fetal blood sampling, as an adjunc-
                        reserves, notably malnourished ’growth restricted’ fetuses, may         tive test along with cardiotocography, may decrease unnecessary
                        become distressed. The umbilical cord may also be compressed            intervention without jeopardising fetal outcome. No clinical tri-
                        during labour, especially if the membranes are ruptured, which          als have directly compared fetal monitoring by cardiotocography
                        mayalso cause distress.                                                 alone versus cardiotocography with the option of fetal scalp sam-
                        The earliest method of monitoring fetal wellbeing during labour         pling. However,trials comparing cardiotocography withintermit-
                        wasbyusingthefetal(Pinard)stethoscopeintermittentlytocalcu-             tent auscultation show a greater increase in caesarean section rates
                        latethefetalheartrate.Duringthe1960sand1970s,electronicsys-             when fetal scalp sampling was not available (RR 1.79, 95% CI
                        temsweredevelopedtoallowmonitoringofthefetalheartrateto-                1.41 to 2.27) than when available (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05 to
                        gether with the mother’s uterine contractions (cardiotocography),       1.51) (Alfirevic 2006). Scalp sampling is an awkward, uncomfort-
                        and these have been very widely used. To monitor the heart rate,        able procedure for the mother and involves a stab incision in the
                        signals can be obtained from an ultrasound transducer strapped to       scalp of the fetus. This has limited its appeal (Clark 1985; Wheble
                        themother’sabdomen,orfromanelectrodeclippedintothebaby’s                1989) and pre-empts its use in areas with a high prevalence of
                        scalp. Traces of the baby’s heart rate may be ’continuous’ (that is,    HIVinfection.Anadditionaldrawbackisthat,byitsnature,scalp
                        throughoutlabour)orintermittent.Althoughthemother’smobil-               sampling can only give intermittent information about fetal acid-
                        ity is limited by both methods, this is obviously greater with con-     base status.
                        tinuous monitoring. Non-reassuring features on a cardiotocogra-         Toaddress thesechallengesin intrapartum fetal monitoring, tech-
                        phytracewouldincludeunusuallyrapidorslowrates,aflatpattern               nology has been developed to monitor the fetal electrocardio-
                        (reduced variability), and certain types of heart rate decelerations    graphic (ECG) waveform during labour. If shown helpful to ei-
                        (especially ’late’ or ’severe variable’ decelerations). Such observa-   ther improvefetal outcome, or decrease unnecessary intervention,
                        tions might prompt further intervention in the form of operative        or both, this has the potential advantage of providing continuous
                        delivery, or additional testing of fetal condition (see below).         information as well as being less invasive than fetal scalp sampling
                        A systematic review of randomised trials comparing continuous           (although it is not non-invasive: requiring a signal obtained from
                        electronic fetal heart rate monitoring (cardiotocography) and in-       an electrode embedded in the fetal scalp).
                        termittent auscultation (Alfirevic 2006) showed fewer babies hav-        ThefetalECG,liketheadultECG,displaysP,QRS,andTwaves
                        ing neonatal convulsions after continuous monitoring (relative          corresponding to electrical events in the heart during each beat.
                        risk (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 0.80) but           The P wave represents atrial contraction, QRS ventricular con-
                        at the cost of increased rates of obstetric intervention in the form    traction, and T ventricular repolarisation. Two parts of the fetal
                        of caesarean section (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.13) and instru-         ECGwaveformhaveattractedattention fromresearchers:PR/RR
                        mental vaginal delivery (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32). Neona-          relations and the ST waveform (Greene 1999). Normally there is
                        tal convulsions are often, but not always, associated with hypoxic-     a positive correlation between the PR interval (the time between
                        Fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) for fetal monitoring during labour (Review)                                                                  2
                        Copyright©2007 The CochraneCollaboration.Published byJohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Kata-kata yang terdapat di dalam file ini mungkin membantu anda melihat apakah file ini sesuai dengan yang dicari :

...Fetal electrocardiogram ecg for monitoring during labour review neilson jp thisisareprintofacochranereview preparedandmaintained bythecochranecollaborationandpublishedinthecochranelibrary issue http www thecochranelibrary com copyright the cochranecollaboration published byjohn wiley sons ltd table of contents abstract plainlanguagesummary background objectives criteriaforconsideringstudiesforthisreview searchmethodsforidentificationofstudies methodsofthereview descriptionofstudies methodologicalquality results discussion authors conclusions potentialconflictofinterest acknowledgements sourcesofsupport references tables characteristics included studies excluded ongoing analyses comparison plus ctg versus alone indexterms coversheet graphsandothertables analysis outcome perinatal death neonatal encephalopathy apgar score at minutes cord ph base decit mmol l artery intubation admission special care unit caesarean section operative vaginal delivery all deliveries...

no reviews yet
Please Login to review.