Tocolysis and Delayed Delivery Versus Emergency Delivery in Cases of Non-reassuring Fetal Status During Labor

Aim:  To determine whether fetal intrauterine resuscitation using tocolysis and delayed delivery is better for the fetus than emergency delivery when fetal hypoxia is suspected because of a non-reassuring fetal heart-rate (FHR) pattern using conventional heart rate monitoring. Methods:  This was a prospective and randomized study, conducted between 2001 and 2004 at Pereira Rossell Hospital, Montevideo, Uruguay. The population consisted of 390 fetuses, in which intrauterine distress was diagnosed using electronic FHR monitoring. Of these, 197 were randomly assigned to the emergency delivery group and 193 to the fetal intrauterine resuscitation group. The inclusion criteria were: term singleton pregnancy, in labor, cephalic presentation, and no placental accidents. Results:  The time between randomization and birth was 16.9 ± 7.6 min (mean ± SD) for the emergency delivery group, and 34.5 ± 11.7 min (mean ± SD) for the resuscitation group. The relative risk (RR) of acidosis in the umbilical artery (pH < 7.1) in the emergency delivery group was 1.47 (0.95–2.27). The RR of base deficit ≤12 mEq/L in the emergency delivery group was higher than in the resuscitation group (RR = 1.48 [1.0–2.2], P = 0.04). When considering the need for admission to the neonatal care unit, the relative risk was higher in the emergency delivery group than in the resuscitation group (RR = 2.14 [1.23·3.74], P = 0.005). No maternal adverse effects were reported. Conclusion:  Tocolysis and delayed delivery renders better immediate neonatal results than emergency delivery when fetal distress is suspected because of a non-reassuring fetal heart pattern. In addition, it may decrease the need for emergency delivery without increasing maternal and fetal adverse side-effects.