Diagnostic Accuracy of the FIGO and the 5-Tier Fetal Heart Rate Classification Systems in the Detection of Neonatal Acidemia

Objective The objective of this study was to determine ability to detect neonatal acidemia and interobserver agreement with the FIGO 3‐tier and 5‐tier fetal heart rate (FHR) classification systems. Design This was a case‐control study. Setting This study was set at the University Medical Center. Population A total of 202 FHR tracings of 102 women who delivered an acidemic fetus (umbilical arterial cord gas pH ≤ 7.10 and BE < ‐ 8) and 100 who delivered a nonacidemic fetus (umbilical arterial cord gas pH > 7.10) were assessed. A subanalysis was performed for those fetuses who suffered severe metabolic acidemia (pH ≤ 7.0 and BE < ‐ 12). Methods Two reviewers blind to clinical and outcome data classified tracings according to the new 3‐tier system proposed by the FIGO and the 5‐tier system proposed by Parer and Ikeda. Main Outcome Measures Sensitivity and specificity for detecting neonatal acidemia and interobserver agreement in classifying FHR tracings into categories of both systems were studied. Results The 3‐tier system showed a greater sensitivity and lower specificity to detect neonatal acidemia (43.6% sensitivity, 82.5% specificity) and severe metabolic acidemia (71.4% sensitivity, 74.0% specificity) compared with the 5‐tier system (36.3% sensitivity, 88% specificity and 61.9% sensitivity, 80.1% specificity, respectively). Both systems were compared by area under the receiver‐operating characteristic curve, with comparable predictive ability for detecting neonatal acidemia (FIGO—area under the curve [AUC]: 0.63 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57‐0.68] and Parer—AUC: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.56‐0.67]). Interobserver agreement was moderate for both systems, but performance at each specific category showed a better agreement for the 5‐tier system identifying a pathological tracing (orange or red, &kgr;: 0.625 vs. pathological category, &kgr;: 0.538). Conclusion Both systems presented a comparable ability to predict neonatal acidemia, although the 5‐tier system showed a better interobserver agreement identifying pathological tracings.

[1]  ACOG technical bulletin. Fetal heart rate patterns: monitoring, interpretation, and management. Number 207--July 1995 (replaces No. 132, September 1989). , 1995, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[2]  J. Parer,et al.  A framework for standardized management of intrapartum fetal heart rate patterns. , 2007, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[3]  C. Spong,et al.  The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines. , 2008, Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN.

[4]  Emily F Hamilton,et al.  Comparison of 5 experts and computer analysis in rule-based fetal heart rate interpretation. , 2010, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[5]  T. Okai,et al.  Intrapartum management guidelines based on fetal heart rate pattern classification , 2010, The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research.

[6]  Practice bulletin no. 116: Management of intrapartum fetal heart rate tracings. , 2010, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[7]  Tomoaki Ikeda,et al.  The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Report on Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring , 2010 .

[8]  Leah Antoniewicz,et al.  Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the NICHD 3-Tier Fetal Heart Rate Interpretation System. , 2011, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[9]  S. Blackwell,et al.  Assessment of the concordance among 2-tier, 3-tier, and 5-tier fetal heart rate classification systems. , 2011, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[10]  Diogo Ayres-de-Campos,et al.  Human factors affecting the interpretation of fetal heart rate tracings: an update , 2012, Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology.

[11]  Frequency of Fetal Heart Rate Categories and Short-term Neonatal Outcome , 2012 .

[12]  Jaclyn Coletta,et al.  The 5-tier system of assessing fetal heart rate tracings is superior to the 3-tier system in identifying fetal acidemia. , 2012, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  Anthony O Odibo,et al.  Association and prediction of neonatal acidemia. , 2012, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  F. Mecacci,et al.  Comparison of five classification systems for interpreting electronic fetal monitoring in predicting neonatal status at birth , 2013, The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians.

[15]  Jeanne-Marie Guise,et al.  Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. , 2014, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[16]  David A. Miller,et al.  Intrapartum management of category II fetal heart rate tracings: towards standardization of care. , 2013, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  A. Ugwumadu,et al.  Are we (mis)guided by current guidelines on intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring? Case for a more physiological approach to interpretation , 2014, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[18]  Standardization of fetal heart rate pattern management: Is international consensus possible? , 2014 .

[19]  D. Ayres-de-Campos,et al.  FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: Cardiotocography , 2015, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[20]  Jérémie F. Cohen,et al.  STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. , 2015, Radiology.

[21]  Mechanism of reduction of newborn metabolic acidemia following application of a rule-based 5-category color-coded fetal heart rate management framework , 2015, The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians.