ST waveform analysis vs cardiotocography alone for intrapartum fetal monitoring: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials

Abstract Introduction ST waveform analysis (STAN) was introduced as an adjunct to cardiotocography (CTG) to improve neonatal and maternal outcomes. The aim of the present study was to quantify the efficacy of STAN vs CTG and assess the quality of the evidence using GRADE. Material and methods We per...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ellen Blix, Kjetil Gundro Brurberg, Eirik Reierth, Liv Merete Reinar, Pål Øian
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2024-03-01
Series:Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14752
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849687364741365760
author Ellen Blix
Kjetil Gundro Brurberg
Eirik Reierth
Liv Merete Reinar
Pål Øian
author_facet Ellen Blix
Kjetil Gundro Brurberg
Eirik Reierth
Liv Merete Reinar
Pål Øian
author_sort Ellen Blix
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Introduction ST waveform analysis (STAN) was introduced as an adjunct to cardiotocography (CTG) to improve neonatal and maternal outcomes. The aim of the present study was to quantify the efficacy of STAN vs CTG and assess the quality of the evidence using GRADE. Material and methods We performed systematic literature searches to identify randomized controlled trials and assessed included studies for risk of bias. We performed meta‐analyses, calculating pooled risk ratio (RR) or Peto odds ratio (OR). We also performed post hoc trial sequential analyses for selected outcomes to assess the risk of false‐positive results and the need for additional studies. Results Nine randomized controlled trials including 28 729 women were included in the meta‐analysis. There were no differences between the groups in operative deliveries for fetal distress (10.9 vs 11.1%; RR 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82–1.11). STAN was associated with a significantly lower rate of metabolic acidosis (0.45% vs 0.68%; Peto OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.48–0.90). Accordingly, 441 women need to be monitored with STAN instead of CTG alone to prevent one case of metabolic acidosis. Women allocated to STAN had a reduced risk of fetal blood sampling compared with women allocated to conventional CTG monitoring (12.5% vs 19.6%; RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.49–0.80). The quality of the evidence was high to moderate. Conclusions Absolute effects of STAN were minor and the clinical significance of the observed reduction in metabolic acidosis is questioned. There is insufficient evidence to state that STAN as an adjunct to CTG leads to important clinical benefits compared with CTG alone.
format Article
id doaj-art-15ebcb18afba4602b239e2571353f5d2
institution DOAJ
issn 0001-6349
1600-0412
language English
publishDate 2024-03-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
spelling doaj-art-15ebcb18afba4602b239e2571353f5d22025-08-20T03:22:21ZengWileyActa Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica0001-63491600-04122024-03-01103343744810.1111/aogs.14752ST waveform analysis vs cardiotocography alone for intrapartum fetal monitoring: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trialsEllen Blix0Kjetil Gundro Brurberg1Eirik Reierth2Liv Merete Reinar3Pål Øian4Faculty of Health Sciences Oslo Metropolitan University Oslo NorwayThe Norwegian Institute of Public Health Oslo NorwayScience and Health Library University Library, UiT The Arctic University of Norway Tromsø NorwayThe Norwegian Institute of Public Health Oslo NorwayDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology University Hospital of North Norway Tromsø NorwayAbstract Introduction ST waveform analysis (STAN) was introduced as an adjunct to cardiotocography (CTG) to improve neonatal and maternal outcomes. The aim of the present study was to quantify the efficacy of STAN vs CTG and assess the quality of the evidence using GRADE. Material and methods We performed systematic literature searches to identify randomized controlled trials and assessed included studies for risk of bias. We performed meta‐analyses, calculating pooled risk ratio (RR) or Peto odds ratio (OR). We also performed post hoc trial sequential analyses for selected outcomes to assess the risk of false‐positive results and the need for additional studies. Results Nine randomized controlled trials including 28 729 women were included in the meta‐analysis. There were no differences between the groups in operative deliveries for fetal distress (10.9 vs 11.1%; RR 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82–1.11). STAN was associated with a significantly lower rate of metabolic acidosis (0.45% vs 0.68%; Peto OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.48–0.90). Accordingly, 441 women need to be monitored with STAN instead of CTG alone to prevent one case of metabolic acidosis. Women allocated to STAN had a reduced risk of fetal blood sampling compared with women allocated to conventional CTG monitoring (12.5% vs 19.6%; RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.49–0.80). The quality of the evidence was high to moderate. Conclusions Absolute effects of STAN were minor and the clinical significance of the observed reduction in metabolic acidosis is questioned. There is insufficient evidence to state that STAN as an adjunct to CTG leads to important clinical benefits compared with CTG alone.https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14752cardiotocographyfetal electrocardiographyintrapartum fetal monitoringliving systematic reviewmeta‐analysisST waveform analysis
spellingShingle Ellen Blix
Kjetil Gundro Brurberg
Eirik Reierth
Liv Merete Reinar
Pål Øian
ST waveform analysis vs cardiotocography alone for intrapartum fetal monitoring: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
cardiotocography
fetal electrocardiography
intrapartum fetal monitoring
living systematic review
meta‐analysis
ST waveform analysis
title ST waveform analysis vs cardiotocography alone for intrapartum fetal monitoring: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials
title_full ST waveform analysis vs cardiotocography alone for intrapartum fetal monitoring: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials
title_fullStr ST waveform analysis vs cardiotocography alone for intrapartum fetal monitoring: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials
title_full_unstemmed ST waveform analysis vs cardiotocography alone for intrapartum fetal monitoring: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials
title_short ST waveform analysis vs cardiotocography alone for intrapartum fetal monitoring: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials
title_sort st waveform analysis vs cardiotocography alone for intrapartum fetal monitoring an updated systematic review and meta analysis of randomized trials
topic cardiotocography
fetal electrocardiography
intrapartum fetal monitoring
living systematic review
meta‐analysis
ST waveform analysis
url https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14752
work_keys_str_mv AT ellenblix stwaveformanalysisvscardiotocographyaloneforintrapartumfetalmonitoringanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT kjetilgundrobrurberg stwaveformanalysisvscardiotocographyaloneforintrapartumfetalmonitoringanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT eirikreierth stwaveformanalysisvscardiotocographyaloneforintrapartumfetalmonitoringanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT livmeretereinar stwaveformanalysisvscardiotocographyaloneforintrapartumfetalmonitoringanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT paløian stwaveformanalysisvscardiotocographyaloneforintrapartumfetalmonitoringanupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials