Comparison of fetal heart rate baseline estimation by SisPorto 2.01 and a consensus of clinicians.

OBJECTIVE Fetal heart rate (FHR) baseline estimation is considered one of the most difficult aspects of computer analysis of cardiotocographs, and a pre-requisite for the remaining evaluation. This study aimed at comparing FHR baselines assigned by SisPorto 2.01 with those estimated by a consensus of three clinicians. STUDY DESIGN A prospective evaluation of 300 consecutively acquired FHR tracings was undertaken, 150 from antepartum high-risk pregnancies and 150 from unselected intrapartum cases. Tracings were presented to three experienced clinicians for individual FHR baseline estimation and were processed by the SisPorto 2.01 program. Clinicians were asked to follow a previously described baseline definition, and cases where differences in estimation exceeded 3 bpm were re-evaluated at a consensus meeting. In the remaining cases, the average of the three estimations was considered the consensus value. Agreement between SisPorto 2.01 and the consensus of clinicians was evaluated using the kappa statistic, the proportions of agreement, the intra-class correlation coefficient, and the limits of agreement. RESULTS Differences < or =3 bpm occurred in 89% of antepartum and 81% of intrapartum cases. No differences exceeding 10 bpm occurred in the antepartum, while in the intrapartum these were found in 1% of cases. Maximum difference between computer and clinicians was 8 bpm in the antepartum and 15 bpm in the intrapartum. Kappa statistics, proportions of agreement and correlation coefficients in the antepartum were 0.97, 0.97 and 0.98, respectively. In the intrapartum, they were 0.87, 0.89 and 0.95. Limits of agreement were -3.22 and 5.22 in the antepartum (mean difference: 1.0; standard deviation: 2.16) and -6.45 and 7.07 in the intrapartum (mean difference: 0.13; standard deviation: 3.45). CONCLUSION An excellent agreement was found between SisPorto 2.01 and a consensus of clinicians in estimation of FHR baselines both in the antepartum and in the intrapartum.

[1]  E. Hamilton,et al.  Intrapartum prediction of fetal status and assessment of labour progress. , 1994, Bailliere's clinical obstetrics and gynaecology.

[2]  A Matias,et al.  Fetal heart-rate monitoring during maternal hypoglycaemic coma: a case report. , 1998, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[3]  G. M. Taylor,et al.  The development and validation of an algorithm for real‐time computerised fetal heart rate monitoring in labour , 2000, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[4]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

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

[6]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

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

[8]  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.

[9]  H. Prechtl,et al.  Are there behavioural states in the human fetus? , 1982, Early human development.

[10]  J. Bernardes,et al.  A more objective fetal heart rate baseline estimation , 1996, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[11]  G S Dawes,et al.  Baseline in human fetal heart‐rate records , 1982, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[12]  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.

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

[14]  M. Keirse,et al.  OBSERVER VARIABILITY IN ASSESSMENT OF ANTEPARTUM CARDIOTOCOGRAMS , 1978, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[15]  J. Bernardes,et al.  Early, variable and late decelerations: can a consensus be reached in their identification? , 1999, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[16]  R. Gagnon,et al.  A comparison between visual and computer analysis of antepartum fetal heart rate tracings. , 1993, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  K. Maeda 9 Computerized analysis of cardiotocograms and fetal movements , 1990 .

[18]  Z. J. Yang,et al.  The prediction of fetal acidosis at birth by computerised analysis of intrapartum cardiotocography , 1995, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[19]  Mohamed Shoukri,et al.  Statistical Methods for Health Sciences , 1995 .

[20]  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.

[21]  H. V. Geijn,et al.  Critical Appraisal of Fetal Surveillance , 1994 .

[22]  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.

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

[24]  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.

[25]  J. M. Swartjes,et al.  Computer analysis of antepartum fetal heart rate: 1. Baseline determination. , 1990, International journal of bio-medical computing.