Inter-observer reliability of 4 fetal heart rate classifications.

OBJECTIVE Different classification of fetal heart rate (FHR) pattern have been proposed: FHR classified as either "reassuring" or "non-reassuring", the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) published in 2008 a 3-tier system, the French College of Gynecology and Obstetrics (CNGOF) recommended in 2013 a 5-tier system and recently in 2015, the Federation International of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) proposed a new classification based on a 3-tier system. Our objective was to assess the inter-observer reliability of these 4 existing classifications. STUDY DESIGN Four observers reviewed 100 FHR without clinical information. FHR were obtained from term singleton pregnancies. Fetal heart rate patterns were classified by one 2-tier ("reassuring vs. non-reassuring"), two 3-tier (NICHD 2008 and FIGO 2015), and one 5-tier (CNGOF 2013) fetal heart classifications. RESULTS The global agreement between observers was moderate for each classification: 0.58 (0.40-0.74) for the 2-tier, 0.48 (0.37-0.58) for the NICHD 2008, 0.58 (0.53-0.63) for the CNGOF 2013 and 0.59 (0.49-0.67) for the FIGO 2015 classification. When FHR was classified as reassuring, it was classified as normal in 85.5% for the NICHD 2008 and in 94.5% for the FIGO 2015. For the CNGOF 2013, 65.0% were classified as normal and 32.5% as quasi normal. There was strong concordance between FIGO category I and "reassuring" FHR (kappa=0.95). CONCLUSION Inter-observer agreement of FHR interpretation is moderate whatever the classification used. To evaluate the superior interest of one classification, it will be interesting to compare their impact on need of second line techniques and on neonatal outcome.

[1]  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.

[2]  Z. Alfirevic,et al.  Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. , 2017, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[3]  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.

[4]  Sandra Hernandez,et al.  Visual analysis of antepartum fetal heart rate tracings: inter- and intra-observer agreement and impact of knowledge of neonatal outcome , 2005, Journal of perinatal medicine.

[5]  M. Dreyfus,et al.  [CNGOF classification of fetal heart rate: color code for obstetricians and midwives]. , 2013, Journal de gynecologie, obstetrique et biologie de la reproduction.

[6]  D. Peebles,et al.  Antenatal tests of fetal wellbeing. , 2015, Seminars in fetal & neonatal medicine.

[7]  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.

[8]  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.

[9]  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, Obstetrics and gynecology.

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

[11]  David A. Miller,et al.  Interobserver Reliability of Fetal Heart Rate Pattern Interpretation Using NICHD Definitions , 2012, American Journal of Perinatology.

[12]  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.

[13]  Sarah Rhöse,et al.  Inter‐ and intra‐observer agreement of non‐reassuring cardiotocography analysis and subsequent clinical management , 2014, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[14]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data , 2007 .

[15]  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.

[16]  João Bernardes,et al.  Interobserver agreement in CTG interpretation using the 2015 FIGO guidelines for intrapartum fetal monitoring. , 2016, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[17]  A. Lalonde,et al.  The reproducibility of intrapartum cardiotocogram assessments. , 1982, Canadian Medical Association journal.

[18]  W. Piyamongkol,et al.  Accuracy of fetal heart‐rate variability interpretation by obstetricians using the criteria of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development compared with computer‐aided interpretation , 2005, The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research.

[19]  Knowledge of adverse neonatal outcome alters clinicians’ interpretation of the intrapartum cardiotocograph , 2011, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[20]  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.

[21]  William McGuire,et al.  Cardiotocography versus intermittent auscultation of fetal heart on admission to labour ward for assessment of fetal wellbeing. , 2017, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[22]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .