Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Case Series
Editorial
Editorial I
Editorial II
Original Article
Review
Review Article
Systematic Review
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Case Series
Editorial
Editorial I
Editorial II
Original Article
Review
Review Article
Systematic Review
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Original Article
9 (
1
); 3-8

Rates and indicators of Continuous Electronic fetal monitoring - A study from Saudi Arabia

Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Qassim University and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Abstract

Background: This observational study aimed to describe the rates and indicators for continuous electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) during normal labour and to compare them between women who have had one pregnancy (PG) and women who have already delivered two or more children (G2 and above). Methods: The study was conducted at Mother and Child Hospital, Buraidah from July-Sept, 2013 as a descriptive cross sectional study. Results: Seventy four percent of labouring women had EFM and 25.7% had intermittent auscultation. Amongst the EFM group 62% were Primigravidas and 37.9% were multigravidas. When compared between PG and multigravidas, maconium staining (14.18vs 1.22, p value=0.001), maternal concerns for fetal heart rate (14.93 vs 6.10 p value=0.049), and syntocinon usage (14.18 vs 2.44 p value=0.005) were significantly prominent indications for Primigravidas. However trial of scar (0.00vs 15.85 p value <0.001) and associated medical problems (6.72 vs 19.51 p value 0.004) were the most frequent indications for G2 and above. For a large population of women including 13 PG and 18 Multigravidas (Overall 14.3%) there was no particular indication assigned for EFM and this was more frequent amongst Gravida2 and above (P < 0.013). Conclusion: Electronic fetal monitoring is a very common obstetric intervention. It remains a challenge to review its rates and indications in order to identify areas that needs improvement.

Keywords

Electronic fetal monitoring
Primigravida
labour
Saudi Arabia

Fulltext Views
107

PDF downloads
40
View/Download PDF
Download Citations
BibTeX
RIS
Show Sections