On intrapartum fetal monitoring

Abstract The currently advised conduct for intrapartum surveillance of the fetus is either intermittent auscultation or continuous electronic monitoring, depending on the physician's preference. This applies to all, normal or high-risk, conditions. The bases for this recommendation, a number of controlled studies comparing the two methods, showed no better neonatal outcomes and increased cesarean section rates with electronic fetal monitoring. A review of the works pertaining to fetal development of cardiovascular and central nervous systems and their response to various pathophysiologic conditions (in animals and humans) was carried out in an effort to find an explanation for this apparently uncongruous position. It was found that fetal responses to seemingly comparable conditions are radically different depending on age of gestation. Many authors have pointed this out for the human fetus. However, for interpretation of electronic fetal monitoring in labor, various standard, nondescriptive, confusing words are used to imply the need for rapid intervention. The complete lack of uniform interpretation has been shown in studies comparing interobserver and intraobserver variations. This may be the consequence of poor or superficial teaching of a tool that requires much study and hard work for useful application. The inescapable conclusion is unpleasant but inevitable: to use electronic fetal monitoring properly it is necessary to start a new learning of the physiology of the fetus, its changing evolution as pregnancy advances, its different responses under stress or distress, and the various ways these are represented in electronic fetal monitoring tracings. These efforts take dedication and time spent in labor suites collating tracings with neonatal condition. Only by doing this will it be possible to assist the laboring patients with a useful tool that, so far, has not been adequately applied because of insufficient understanding. (AM J OBSTET GYNECOL 1996;174:1382-9.)