Comparison of a computer system evaluation of intrapartum cardiotocographic events and a consensus of clinicians

Abstract Aims: To compare between computer analysis of intrapartum cardiotocography (CTG) features by the Omniview-SisPorto® 3.5 and a consensus of clinicians. Methods: Agreement study using 50 consecutively acquired tracings (206 h of signals) with >60 min duration, <10% signal loss and recorded in labor at term by internal fetal heart rate (FHR) monitoring. Tracings were divided into 10-min segments and independently analyzed by three experienced clinicians, in order to estimate the FHR baseline and identify periodic events. A consensus was reached using a three round Delphi procedure. Results were compared with the analysis provided by the Omniview-SisPorto® 3.5 system. Results: For baseline estimation, agreement between the computer and the consensus was high [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46–0.93], with a mean difference of 3.7 bpm (limits of agreement –4.4–11.9 bpm), and 99% of differences under 15 bpm. A concordant identification was observed in 71% of accelerations (95% CI: 69%–73%), 68% of decelerations (95% CI: 66%–70%), and 87% of uterine contractions (95% CI: 85%–89%). Conclusions: A high agreement was observed between the Omniview-SisPorto® 3.5 and a consensus of clinicians in evaluation of intrapartum CTG baseline, accelerations, decelerations and uterine contractions.

[1]  J M Bland,et al.  How good is intercenter agreement in the identification of embolic signals in carotid artery disease? , 1996, Stroke.

[2]  A Hasman,et al.  Interobserver variation in the assessment of fetal heart rate recordings. , 1993, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[3]  D. Ayres-de- Campos,et al.  SisPorto 2.0: a program for automated analysis of cardiotocograms. , 2000, The Journal of maternal-fetal medicine.

[4]  G S Dawes,et al.  System 8000: Computerized antenatal FHR analysis , 1991, Journal of perinatal medicine.

[5]  N. Paneth,et al.  Electronic Fetal Monitoring and Later Outcome , 1993, Clinical and investigative medicine. Medecine clinique et experimentale.

[6]  J. M. Grant,et al.  The fetal heart rate trace is normal, isn't it? Observer agreement of categorical assessments , 1991, The Lancet.

[7]  K. Maršál,et al.  Cardiotocography only versus cardiotocography plus ST analysis of fetal electrocardiogram for intrapartum fetal monitoring: a Swedish randomised controlled trial , 2001, The Lancet.

[8]  T. Chung,et al.  Computerised estimation of the baseline fetal heart rate in labour: the low frequency line , 1997, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[9]  A Costa-Pereira,et al.  Inconsistencies in classification by experts of cardiotocograms and subsequent clinical decision , 1999, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[10]  J. Bernardes,et al.  Evaluation of interobserver agreement of cardiotocograms , 1997, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[11]  João Bernardes,et al.  Prediction of neonatal state by computer analysis of fetal heart rate tracings: the antepartum arm of the SisPorto multicentre validation study. , 2005, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[12]  João Bernardes,et al.  Comparison of fetal heart rate baseline estimation by SisPorto 2.01 and a consensus of clinicians. , 2004, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[13]  J. Waller,et al.  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. , 2000, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  G S Dawes,et al.  Improvements in the registration and analysis of fetal heart rate records at the bedside , 1985, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[15]  Diogo Ayres-de-Campos,et al.  Can the reproducibility of fetal heart rate baseline estimation be improved? , 2004, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[16]  T. Todros,et al.  Fetal heart rate tracings: observers versus computer assessment. , 1996, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[17]  A. Fanaroff,et al.  Prediction of neonatal acidemia by computer analysis of fetal heart rate and ST event signals , 2010 .

[18]  Everett F. Magann,et al.  Intrapartum nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing and prediction of adverse outcomes: interobserver variability. , 2008, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[19]  J. Parer,et al.  Validity of mathematical methods of quantitating fetal heart rate variability. , 1985, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[20]  Diogo Ayres-de-Campos,et al.  Omniview-SisPorto 3.5 - a central fetal monitoring station with online alerts based on computerized cardiotocogram+ST event analysis. , 2008, Journal of perinatal medicine.

[21]  Z. Alfirevic,et al.  Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. , 2006, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[22]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[23]  João Bernardes,et al.  Agreement studies in obstetrics and gynaecology: inappropriateness, controversies and consequences , 2005, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[24]  G. Norman,et al.  Evaluating measurement variability in clinical investigations: the case of ultrasonic estimation of urinary bladder volume , 1997, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[25]  J. P. Marques de Sá,et al.  The Porto system for automated cardiotocographic signal analysis , 1991, Journal of perinatal medicine.