my hospital says that they will do a vbac but they aren’t set up for it because the labor side is far away from the c-section side so if i try to do a vbac and end up having a c section it will take a lot longer to get me to surgery. do you think this is a legitimate reason to consider not having a vbac? im too close to my due date ( 7 days left ) to change hospitals or doctors although i am beginning to wish i would have. ..
-NERVOUS in hagerstown maryland

Hi Virginia,

The short answer is: No, that is not a legitimate reason to deny you a VBAC.

The reality is, you are less likely to experience an uterine rupture than a complication that has absolutely nothing to do with your prior uterine surgery.  (Please read Scare tactics vs. informed consent and scroll down to the chart entitled “Risks far outweigh VBAC” to see for yourself.)

Since obstetrical complications arise during labor in women with no history of uterine surgery that require immediate surgical delivery, how can a hospital claim that they are fit to attend those births, but not yours?

Any birth (VBAC or not) could end in a medically necessary cesarean and any hospital (urban or rural) set up for birth should have a plan detailing how they will respond to those inevitabilities.

I have also often wondered how often women with true obstetrical complications requiring immediate cesareans or even car accident victims requiring surgery, have been unable to receive that care due to otherwise healthy moms and healthy babies undergoing  scheduled elective repeat cesareans occupying the operating rooms?  With over 90% of women having repeat cesareans, I’m sure it’s happened, especially in smaller hospitals (Martin, 2006).

The ability of rural hospitals to safely attend VBACs was extensively discussed at the March 2010 NIH VBAC conference.  One doctor spoke during the public comment period and stated that her rural hospital had a VBAC rate of over 30%!  It turns out, if a hospital is supportive of VBAC and motivated, they can absolutely offer VBAC safely.  (I also welcome you to read the commentary of two obstetricians and one certified nurse midwife who argued against the VBAC ban instated at their local rural hospital.)

As David J. Birnbach, M.D., M.P.H (2010), who presented on the impact of anesthesiologists on the incidence of VBAC asserted:

Lack of immediate available of anesthesia may not always be a key factor in outcome [during a uterine rupture], especially in cases where the obstetrician is not present. Many cases of uterine rupture can be stabilized while the anesthesiologists becomes available, and examples have been suggested of ways to reduce the risk associated with such a crisis. These include antepartum [prenatal] consultation of VBAC patients with the anesthesia departments, development of cesarean delivery under local anesthesia protocols, finding methods of improving communication on labor and delivery suites, practice “fire-drills,” and development of protocols matching resources to risk.

I highly recommend you read the Final Statement produced by the conference as it was the catalyst for the subsequent revision of ACOG’s (2010) VBAC guidelines in the Practice Bulletin No. 115 where they affirmed:

Women and their physicians may still make a plan for a TOLAC in situations where there may not be “immediately available” staff to handle emergencies, but it requires a thorough discussion of the local health care system, the available resources, and the potential for incremental risk.

This is a huge change.

The term “immediately available,” first introduced in the 1999 Practice Bulletin No. 5 and then reiterated in the 2004 Practice Bulletin No. 45, was the reason why many hospitals ultimately banned VBAC.  Hopefully the removal of that recommendation in this new Practice Bulletin will result in the reversal of VBAC bans and an overall greater support for VBA1C and VBA2C.  ACOG acknowledged that their prior recommendation was resulting in way to many cesareans and the increasing risks that multiple cesareans bring are significant and unacceptable.  (Please read the risks of multiple cesareans detailed by Silver 2006 in Another VBAC Consult Misinforms.)

The removal of the “immediately available” recommendation is supported by the NIH (2010) Final Statement which found it, if implemented in all hospitals, to be an impossible standard that could result in the closing of many Labor & Delivery units:

Would provision of an anesthesiologist standing by waiting for an emergency at every hospital that practices obstetric care increase patient safety?  In truth, that person would need to be doing nothing else clinically, so even being in the hospital might not qualify for “immediately available.”  Looking at the numbers of anesthesia staff currently available, the minimum requirement to provide immediate anesthesia [per the recommendation of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologist] care for all deliveries would be to have all deliveries accomplished at facilities with greater than 1,500 deliveries annually.  This would require that approximately three-quarters of all obstetric programs nationwide be closed (Birnbach, 2010).

I am excited and hopeful to see the ripple effects of this new Practice Bulletin especially for women in rural areas.  Hopefully the option of VBAC will become a reality for more women.

______________________________________________

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2010, July 21). Ob-Gyns Issue Less Restrictive VBAC Guidelines. Retrieved July 21, 2010, from ACOG: http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr07-21-10-1.cfm

Kamel, J. (2010, July 21). ACOG issues less restrictive VBAC guidelines. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/2010/07/21/acog-issues-less-restrictive-vbac-guidelines/

Birnbach, D. J. (2010). Impact of anesthesiologists on the incidence of vaginal birth after cesarean in the United States: Role of anesthesia availability, productivity, guidelines, and patient saftey. Vaginal birth after cesarean: New Insights. Programs and Abstracts (pp. 85-87). Bethesda: National Institutes of Health.

Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., Sutton, P. D., Ventura, S. J., Menacker, F., & Kirmeyer, S. (2006). Births: Final Data for 2004. National Vital Statistics Reports , 55 (1), 1-102.

National Institutes of Health. (2010, June). Final Statement. Retrieved from NIH Consensus Development Conference on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights: http://consensus.nih.gov/2010/vbacstatement.htm

National Institutes of Health. (2010, March 8-10). NIH VBAC Conference: Program & Abstracts. Retrieved from NIH Consensus Development Program: http://consensus.nih.gov/2010/vbacabstracts.htm

In short, VBAC is a “safe and appropriate choice for most women” with one prior cesarean and for “some women” with two prior cesareans.  Being pregnant with twins, going over 40 weeks, having an unknown or low vertical scar, or suspecting a “big baby” should not prevent a woman from planning a VBAC (ACOG, 2010).

What follows is a brief overview of these new guidelines.

They express support for VBAC after one and two prior cesareans:

Attempting a VBAC is a safe and appropriate choice for most women who have had a prior cesarean delivery including for some women who have had two previous cesareans.

They express support for VBAC with twins or unknown scars:

The College guidelines now clearly say that women with two previous low-transverse cesarean incisions, women carrying twins, and women with an unknown type of uterine scar are considered appropriate candidates for a TOLAC.

They detail the risks that can come with multiple cesareans which are often not listed in your standard “informed consent” document:

[VBAC] may also help women avoid the possible future risks of having multiple cesareans such as hysterectomy, bowel and bladder injury, transfusion, infection, and abnormal placenta conditions (placenta previa and placenta accreta).

But what will have the most impact on the most women is the lifting of the “immediately available” recommendation turned requirement as suggested by the NIH VBAC Conference:

The [American] College [of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] maintains that a TOLAC is most safely undertaken where staff can immediately provide an emergency cesarean, but recognizes that such resources may not be universally available.

They acknowledged how the phrase “immediately available” in their last recommendation were used to support VBAC bans:

“Given the onerous medical liability climate for ob-gyns, interpretation of The College’s earlier guidelines led many hospitals to refuse allowing VBACs altogether,” said Dr. Waldman. “Our primary goal is to promote the safest environment for labor and delivery, not to restrict women’s access to VBAC.

And they now support hospitals who do not meet the “immediately available” standard attending VBACs:

Women and their physicians may still make a plan for a TOLAC in situations where there may not be “immediately available” staff to handle emergencies, but it requires a thorough discussion of the local health care system, the available resources, and the potential for incremental risk.

Finally, they assert how women should not be force to have a repeat cesarean against their will and that women should be referred out to VBAC supportive practitioners if their current care provider would rather not attend a VBAC:

The College says that restrictive VBAC policies should not be used to force women to undergo a repeat cesarean delivery against their will if, for example, a woman in labor presents for care and declines a repeat cesarean delivery at a center that does not support TOLAC. On the other hand, if, during prenatal care, a physician is uncomfortable with a patient’s desire to undergo VBAC, it is appropriate to refer her to another physician or center.

Removing the “immediately available” standard while supporting VBAC with twins, after two prior cesareans, and with unknown scars is a huge step in the right direction.  It seems that the option of VBAC is now available to hundreds of thousands of women, many of whom, up to this point, were left with no choice at all.

Read the whole press release dated July 21, 2010: Ob-Gyns Issue Less Restrictive VBAC Guidelines.

Available for purchase dated August 2010: Practice Bulletin #115, “Vaginal Birth after Previous Cesarean Delivery,” is published in the August 2010 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

First, our definitions of the day from Wikipedia…

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) aims to apply the best available evidence gained from the scientific method to medical decision making.^[1] It seeks to assess the quality of evidence of the risks and benefits of treatments (including lack of treatment).^[2]

EBM recognizes that many aspects of medical care depend on individual factors such as quality- and value-of-life judgments, which are only partially subject to scientific methods. EBM, however, seeks to clarify those parts of medical practice that are in principle subject to scientific methods and to apply these methods to ensure the best prediction of outcomes in medical treatment, even as debate continues about which outcomes are desirable.

Informed consent is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications and future consequences of an action. In order to give informed consent, the individual concerned must have adequate reasoning faculties and be in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given.

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method.

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry.

… and a quick review of ACOG’s Practice Bulletin #54, published in July 2004 and the reason why some American hospitals have banned VBAC, recommends, “a physician [be] immediately available throughout active [VBAC] labor who is capable of monitoring labor and performing an emergency cesarean delivery.”

Back to our interview with Dr. Fischbein:

Don’t hospitals ban VBAC because it is dangerous?

They ban VBACs under the guise of patient safety. But patient safety is a euphemism for “we don’t have a good evidence-based reason to do it, other than we don’t want to get sued, it’s more expedient, and we make more money from c-sections—the hospital does, not necessarily the physician, but the hospital does—so we’re going to ban it because it’s easier for us, and we’re going to say it’s for patient safety because of the risk of rupturing the uterus.” But you know what? That risk should be something that the patient decides. Patients have a right to be given informed consent, free from misinformation or coercion, free from skewing information that benefits the practitioner or the hospital. And they have the right to consent or refuse to accept the treatment that’s offered. That right is frequently being denied.

What role does malpractice insurance play in VBAC availability?

The reason that a lot of hospitals ban VBACs anyway [despite meeting ACOG’s “immediately available” recommendation] —and this isn’t very well known to most people—is because their insurance carrier will tell them that if they allow VBACs, their premium will be much higher. Rather than pay higher premiums, they just ban VBACs and do so under the guise of patient safety. The hospital lawyers, the insurance company lawyers, the insurance company executives, and the hospital administrators are making decisions for patients and then lying about why they’re doing it.

Aren’t uterine ruptures the primary reason for repeat cesareans in women with a prior cesarean?

Most emergency c-sections, the ones that occur suddenly, have nothing to do with a uterine rupture.  They are for placental abruption, prolapsed cord, or prolonged fetal heart rate decelerations.  Far more often, it’s something unrelated to the VBAC that causes an emergency.  And somehow the hospital can manage to take care of those situations. If hospitals can take care of those things, why can they not take care of VBACs?

ACOG’s latest VBAC recommendation was based on consensus opinion, not scientific evidence.  Doesn’t that matter to hospitals when implementing VBAC bans?

Ultimately it won’t matter to the hospital. It’s not about evidence-based medicine. It’s very clear to me in discussing this with the committees that they don’t care. They’re being told by the risk managers, the lawyers, and the insurance companies that they cannot do VBACs. And that’s the final word. The anesthesia departments are also often behind VBAC bans. They talk about patient safety, but really it is that reimbursement is so bad and they don’t want to have to sit around in the hospital all day long and they are fearful of being sued.

Does the hospital impact how an OB counsels a woman on VBAC?

I’m supposed to tell patients that they have to go elsewhere if they want a VBAC, that they can’t stay in their own community, that they have to drive 50 miles. … I’m not supposed to tell them that they have the option of showing up in labor and refusing surgery. The hospital actually put in writing that I should avoid telling them that. They’re telling me to skew my counseling, and they have no shame in doing so.

How to OBs feel about working in hospitals with VBAC/breech bans?

For physicians who are not really committed to doing VBACs or breeches, it’s a lot easier to do a section. You get paid about the same. With a section, you can do the surgery at 7:30 am and you’re in the office by 9 am. If you have a breech or a VBAC, you have to cancel your day or spend the night at the hospital. It’s a lot more work, and you don’t get paid any more for it. So you really have to be either dedicated or crazy or somewhere in between. You have to keep your ethical feet well-grounded.

How do VBAC bans impact hospital revenues?

For hospitals, it’s easy. Does a hospital make more money off a practice that has a 5% c-section rate or a 25% c-section rate? That’s an easy question. Although they will never admit that; [the official reason for VBAC bans] will always be patient safety. Clearly, there’s no incentive for them to offer a VBAC to anybody.

How do VBAC bans impact women seeking VBAC?

A successful VBAC occurs about 73% of the time. If a hospital bans VBAC, they’re basically telling 73% of women that they have to undergo a surgical procedure that carries more morbidity than if they had a vaginal birth.

How could tort reform impact VBAC supportive OBs and birthing women?

[With] tort reform, you might be able to make changes by improving competition. If you get rid of some of the restrictions on businesses, you might see more competition start up. You might see more birth centers open, or birth centers that actually have operating rooms, little maternity hospitals. Just like we’ve seen specialty surgery centers open up recently. For years hospitals tried to squelch these things because they know they can’t compete with them. Some day, maybe the major hospital model will go out of business. And would that be so terrible? We have specialty hospitals that do heart surgeries, gastric bypass, or plastic surgery. Why not specialty hospitals that just do maternity? Run by doctors and midwives.

For an extensive discussion of out-of-hospital infant outcomes read: Rebutting Dr. Amy’s Information.

Grassroots Network Message 908040
Big Push exposes ACOG’s bogus research

Dear Friends,

The Big Push let folks know about ACOG’s attempt to collect anecdotal information about poor home birth outcomes; so many people posted good home birth outcomes, that ACOG quickly made the page password protected.  The survey was poorly constructed with no way to verify any reports or avoid duplication, a good example of what ACOG considers “research”! Read the Big Push news release below, which includes a link to a copy of the survey page as it originally appeared.

Sincerely,
Susan Hodges, “gatekeeper”
=================================================================================================
Trouble viewing this PushNews Release? Please visit the PushNewsroom here. 

PushNews from The Big Push for Midwives Campaign

CONTACT: Katherine Prown, (414) 550-8025, katie@thebigpushformidwives.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, August 31, 2009

Viral Internet Campaign Exposes Bogus Research on the “Problem” of Increased Demand for Midwife Care
Thousands of Activists Nationwide Force Physician Group to Scrub Its Website

WASHINGTON, D.C. (August 31, 2009)­In under 18 hours, a viral internet campaign targeted at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists forced the group to take down a public plea asking its members to submit anecdotal, anonymous data about patients who planned out-of-hospital deliveries. According to the request, which was originally linked from ACOG’s home page, the professional trade association for OB/GYNs is "concerned" about the "problem" of growing numbers of women seeking out-of-hospital maternity care.

"Just follow the money," said Steff Hedenkamp of The Big Push for Midwives Campaign. "ACOG does not want to continue losing patients to Certified Professional Midwives and out-of-hospital birth, so they’re telling members to send in more of the same old tall tales that far too many OBs love to scare women with. Well, we have news for ACOG­it’s not working."

The campaign to expose the physician group’s plans began on Facebook and Twitter and rapidly drew thousands of women to ACOG’s website, where they submitted their own data about their healthy deliveries in private homes and in freestanding birth centers throughout the country. In response, ACOG moved quickly to scrub its website and placed its request for unsourced data from members behind a password-protected firewall.

"This was almost as fun as last year’s campaign pressuring the American Medical Association to back off from its ridiculous claim that Ricki Lake is responsible for the increase in out-of-hospital deliveries," said Sabrina McIntyre, mother of two. "The AMA and ACOG seem to forget that women are capable of making rational, informed decisions about our maternity care providers and birth settings. We don’t appreciate fear-mongering tactics meant to try and scare us away from using safe and cost-effective, community-based alternatives to our current maternity care system."

"Analysts familiar with ACOG expect the group to use the anecdotal data collected from members to support its ongoing state and federal lobbying campaigns aimed at denying women access to out-of-hospital maternity care and Certified Professional Midwives, who are specially trained to provide it. "ACOG admits in its own documents that they’ve been forced to use ‘hardball tactics’ against women who are advocating for choices in maternity care," said Hedenkamp. "Frankly, this latest stunt of theirs to troll for ‘fresh’ folklore reeks of desperation.

"The Big Push for Midwives Campaign represents thousands of grassroots advocates in the United States who support expanding access to Certified Professional Midwives and out-of-hospital maternity care. The mission of The Big Push includes educating national policymakers about the reduced costs and improved outcomes associated with out-of-hospital birth and advocating for including the services of Certified Professional Midwives in health care reform. Media inquiries: Katherine Prown (414) 550-8025, katie@thebigpushformidwives.org

#####
The Big Push for Midwives Campaign  |  2300 M Street, N.W., Suite 800  |  Washington, D.C. 20037-1434  |  TheBigPushforMidwives.org

Baby born on I-43 during the morning rush

By Erica Perez and Sharif Durhams of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: July 27, 2009

The baby’s name was supposed to be Cecilia Violet Marie Schulte.

But "supposed to be" doesn’t work for a child born in the front passenger seat of a 1998 Toyota Corolla driving through rush hour on I-43.

Her mother, Annmarie Schulte, delivered the baby herself at 7:28 a.m. Monday, moments after she reached down and felt the little head in her hands.

One contraction later, the baby slid out into her mother’s arms: pink, still sleeping and – her mother knew instinctively – healthy.

"She’s here!" Annmarie exclaimed to her husband, Matthew, who still sat behind the wheel.

By the time they got to the hospital, they would christen their daughter with a new middle name befitting her special birth.

But the story of how the newborn got her name began months ago.

Annmarie, 34, a stay-at-home mom, and Matthew, 39, a teacher who is looking for work, have three older daughters – Megan, almost 7; Millie, 5; and Libby, 2.

For each of her three previous childbirths, Annmarie had gone to the hospital too early and had to have a Caesarean section because of failure to progress. This time, Annmarie wanted a natural childbirth. Some doctors told her it shouldn’t be done. Vaginal births after two C-sections are considered risky because they can cause uterine rupture. She was due Aug. 4. Two doulas – Wendy Kogler and LaNette McQuitty – worked with her during pregnancy, and a physician and a midwife worked with her at Aurora Sinai Medical Center, where she planned to give birth.

Wait until you know for sure the baby is coming before you go to the hospital, Annmarie was told.

At about 1 a.m. Monday at the Schultes’ Muskego home, Annmarie woke up Matthew. Her labor pains had become more intense.

By 3:30 a.m., contractions came about two minutes apart. She and Matthew called the doulas.

They came over and monitored Annmarie’s progress. She got in the bathtub. She changed positions. Around 7 a.m., she was fully dilated. They called the midwife. It was time to go to the hospital – now.

Leaving their other girls with neighbors, Annmarie and Matthew rushed to the car. In their hurry, they grabbed towels but forgot everything else at home – a change of clothes for them, the baby’s clothes, the car seat.

They drove toward Aurora Sinai, Annmarie still in her black-and-white striped nightgown and Kogler and McQuitty following behind in separate cars.

Matthew remained calm, driving below the speed limit and soothing his wife when she felt a contraction.

Kneeling on the passenger seat, Annmarie felt between her legs and cupped her baby’s head.

"She’s coming!" Annmarie screamed.

"Do you want me to stop?" Matthew asked.

"No! Keep going!"

With the very next push, the baby entered the world. She didn’t cry; she slept peacefully.

"She’s here!" Annmarie said.

Annmarie looked at the baby and experienced a deep feeling that everything was all right. Unconventional, but all right.

Matthew was not so sure. He looked at the baby and felt the deepest sense of terror he has ever known. He let out a primal scream. He pulled over into the distress lane at the Plainfield Curve on I-94/43. The doulas pulled over after him.

He ran from the car, still screaming. Words finally came. He frantically waved and yelled for the doulas to come out of their cars.

Kogler called 911. McQuitty checked on the infant. The baby turned a bit purple.

McQuitty gave her a breath and rubbed her back. The newborn turned pink again, letting out a tiny mewl.

Everyone cried. Annmarie wrapped her daughter in a towel and held the 7-pound, 4.8-ounce baby to her chest.

Emergency responders arrived, giving the baby a clean bill of health. Matthew clamped the umbilical cord and cut it.

People driving by on their morning commute, having heard about the freeway birth on news radio, rolled down their windows and yelled: "Happy Birthday!"

The emergency medical technicians joked: "You should name the baby ‘Plainfield’ or ‘Freeway’ or ‘Shoulder.’ "

"Her name is Cecilia," Annmarie said.

Matthew and the doulas followed behind Annmarie and the baby in the ambulance to the hospital.

"We freakin’ did it!" Matthew yelled when they got to Aurora Sinai.

"I think we really should make her middle name ‘Freeway,’ " he said.

Well, Annmarie thought, this child has a free spirit. And the name certainly fit the occasion.

So it was agreed. Cecilia Violet Marie Schulte would be Cecilia Freeway Schulte.

"Each one of my kids is an amazing blessing, but this baby, I delivered – not only vaginally but on my own," Annmarie said. "With the help of my husband and the doulas, I did it. I feel awesome."

This June 22, 2009 press release illustrates ACOG’s (The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’) efforts to help standardize the care women receive from OBs.  Specifically, they wish to stabilize the variability in fetal heart rate interpretations which could considerably impact the frequency of the “fetal distress” diagnosis.

EFM refers to external fetal monitoring which most women know as the belt laboring women wear that measures the baby’s heart rate and is connected to a machine which produces a strip of the baby’s heart rate as well as mom’s contractions.

I found these quotes of particular interest (emphasis is mine). 

"Since 1980, the use of EFM has grown dramatically, from being used on 45% of pregnant women in labor to 85% in 2002," says George A. Macones, MD, who headed the development of the ACOG document. "Although EFM is the most common obstetric procedure today, unfortunately it hasn’t reduced perinatal mortality or the risk of cerebral palsy. In fact, the rate of cerebral palsy has essentially remained the same since World War II despite fetal monitoring and all of our advancements in treatments and interventions."

…

"Our goal with the ACOG guidelines was to define existing terminology and narrow definitions and categories so that everyone is on the same page," says Dr. Macones. One of the problems with FHR tracings is the variability in how they’re interpreted by different people. The ACOG guidelines highlight a case in which four obstetricians examined 50 FHR tracings; they agreed in only 22% of the cases. Two months later, these four physicians reevaluated the same 50 FHR tracings, and they changed their interpretations on nearly one out of every five tracings.

A meta-analysis study shows that although EFM reduced the risk of neonatal seizures, there is still an unrealistic expectation that a nonreassuring FHR can predict the risk of a baby being born with cerebral palsy. The false-positive rate of EFM for predicting cerebral palsy is greater than 99%. This means that out of 1,000 fetuses with nonreassuring readings, only one or two will actually develop cerebral palsy. The guidelines state that women in labor who have high-risk conditions such as preeclampsia, type 1 diabetes, or suspected fetal growth restriction should be monitored continuously during labor.

Note that VBAC is not listed under “high-risk conditions” that “should be monitored continuously during labor.”  Also, with a 99% false positive rate for cerebral palsy, I wonder how effective EFM is for detecting uterine rupture.

Here is the link, ACOG Refines Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring Guidelines, but since I’ve linked to ACOG press releases that then disappeared, I’m going to include the entire press release below.

For Release:
June 22, 2009

ACOG Refines Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring Guidelines

Washington, DC — Refinements of the definitions, classifications, and interpretations of fetal heart rate (FHR) monitoring methods were issued today in new guidelines released by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). The objective of the guidelines is to reduce the inconsistent use of common terminology and the wide variability that sometimes occurs in FHR interpretations. ACOG’s Practice Bulletin, published in the July 2009 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, supports the recommendations of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child and Health Development workshop* on electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) held in April 2008.

The intent of FHR monitoring is to help keep an eye on the status of the fetus during labor and intervene if necessary. There are two main FHR monitoring methods. The most commonly used method is EFM, which detects the fetal heart rate and the length of uterine contractions and the time between them. EFM allows physicians and nurses to measure the response of the fetal heart rate to uterine contractions. A lesser-used method is manual auscultation, which employs either a small handheld Doppler device or a fetoscope (similar to a stethoscope). A normal fetal heart varies between 110 and 160 beats per minute. A heart rate that doesn’t vary or is too low or too high may signal a potential problem with the fetus.

"Since 1980, the use of EFM has grown dramatically, from being used on 45% of pregnant women in labor to 85% in 2002," says George A. Macones, MD, who headed the development of the ACOG document. "Although EFM is the most common obstetric procedure today, unfortunately it hasn’t reduced perinatal mortality or the risk of cerebral palsy. In fact, the rate of cerebral palsy has essentially remained the same since World War II despite fetal monitoring and all of our advancements in treatments and interventions."

One notable update in the guidelines is the three-tier classification system for FHR tracings (print-outs of the fetal heart rate). Category 1 FHR tracings are considered normal and no specific action is required. Category 2 tracings are considered indeterminate. This category requires evaluation and surveillance and possibly other tests to ensure fetal well-being. Category 3 tracings are considered abnormal and require prompt evaluation, according to ACOG. An abnormal FHR reading may require providing oxygen to the pregnant woman, changing the woman’s position, discontinuing labor stimulation, or treating maternal hypotension, among other things. If the tracings do not return to normal, the fetus should be delivered.

"Our goal with the ACOG guidelines was to define existing terminology and narrow definitions and categories so that everyone is on the same page," says Dr. Macones. One of the problems with FHR tracings is the variability in how they’re interpreted by different people. The ACOG guidelines highlight a case in which four obstetricians examined 50 FHR tracings; they agreed in only 22% of the cases. Two months later, these four physicians reevaluated the same 50 FHR tracings, and they changed their interpretations on nearly one out of every five tracings.

A meta-analysis study shows that although EFM reduced the risk of neonatal seizures, there is still an unrealistic expectation that a nonreassuring FHR can predict the risk of a baby being born with cerebral palsy. The false-positive rate of EFM for predicting cerebral palsy is greater than 99%. This means that out of 1,000 fetuses with nonreassuring readings, only one or two will actually develop cerebral palsy. The guidelines state that women in labor who have high-risk conditions such as preeclampsia, type 1 diabetes, or suspected fetal growth restriction should be monitored continuously during labor.

Practice Bulletin #106, "Intrapartum Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring: Nomenclature, Interpretation, and General Management Principles," is published in the July 2009 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

* In 2008, The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development partnered with ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine to sponsor a workshop focused on EFM.

# # #

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is the nation’s leading group of physicians providing health care for women. As a private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization, ACOG: strongly advocates for quality health care for women; maintains the highest standards of clinical practice and continuing education of its members; promotes patient education; and increases awareness among its members and the public of the changing issues facing women’s health care.

Privacy Statement | Important Disclaimer | Copyright Information | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Copyright © 2009 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. All rights reserved.