These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of effect of CTG + STan with CTG alone on emergency Cesarean section rate: STan Australian Randomized controlled Trial (START).
    Author: Kuah S, Simpson B, Salter A, Matthews G, Louise J, Bednarz J, Chandraharan E, Symonds I, McPhee A, Mol BW, Turnbull D, Wilkinson C.
    Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2023 Oct; 62(4):462-470. PubMed ID: 37289946.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether use of ST analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram (STan) as an adjunct to continuous cardiotocography (CTG) reduces the rate of emergency Cesarean section (EmCS) compared with CTG alone. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial of patients with a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation at ≥ 36 weeks' gestation, requiring continuous electronic fetal monitoring during labor at a tertiary maternity hospital in Adelaide, Australia, between January 2018 and July 2021. Participants were randomized to undergo CTG + STan or CTG alone. The calculated sample size was 1818 participants. The primary outcome was EmCS. Secondary outcomes included metabolic acidosis, a composite adverse perinatal outcome, and other maternal and neonatal morbidity and safety outcomes. RESULTS: The present study enrolled 970 women, of whom 967 were included in the primary analysis. EmCS occurred in 107/482 (22.2%) deliveries in the CTG + STan arm and in 107/485 (22.1%) in the CTG arm (adjusted relative risk, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.81-1.27); P = 0.89). There was no difference in the rate of adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes between arms. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of STan as an adjunct to continuous CTG did not reduce the EmCS rate. The smaller-than-anticipated sample size meant that this study was underpowered to detect absolute differences of ≤ 5% and, therefore, this negative finding could be due to a Type-2 error. © 2023 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]