Skip to main content
Elsevier Sponsored Documents logoLink to Elsevier Sponsored Documents
. 2017 Apr 29;389(10080):1719–1729. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30568-8

Computerised interpretation of fetal heart rate during labour (INFANT): a randomised controlled trial

The INFANT Collaborative Group
PMCID: PMC5413601  PMID: 28341515

Summary

Background

Continuous electronic fetal heart-rate monitoring is widely used during labour, and computerised interpretation could increase its usefulness. We aimed to establish whether the addition of decision-support software to assist in the interpretation of cardiotocographs affected the number of poor neonatal outcomes.

Methods

In this unmasked randomised controlled trial, we recruited women in labour aged 16 years or older having continuous electronic fetal monitoring, with a singleton or twin pregnancy, and at 35 weeks' gestation or more at 24 maternity units in the UK and Ireland. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to decision support with the INFANT system or no decision support via a computer-generated stratified block randomisation schedule. The primary outcomes were poor neonatal outcome (intrapartum stillbirth or early neonatal death excluding lethal congenital anomalies, or neonatal encephalopathy, admission to the neonatal unit within 24 h for ≥48 h with evidence of feeding difficulties, respiratory illness, or encephalopathy with evidence of compromise at birth), and developmental assessment at age 2 years in a subset of surviving children. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is completed and is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number 98680152.

Findings

Between Jan 6, 2010, and Aug 31, 2013, 47 062 women were randomly assigned (23 515 in the decision-support group and 23 547 in the no-decision-support group) and 46 042 were analysed (22 987 in the decision-support group and 23 055 in the no-decision-support group). We noted no difference in the incidence of poor neonatal outcome between the groups—172 (0·7%) babies in the decision-support group compared with 171 (0·7%) babies in the no-decision-support group (adjusted risk ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·82–1·25). At 2 years, no significant differences were noted in terms of developmental assessment.

Interpretation

Use of computerised interpretation of cardiotocographs in women who have continuous electronic fetal monitoring in labour does not improve clinical outcomes for mothers or babies.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research.

Introduction

Continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring in labour is widely used but its potential for improving neonatal outcomes has not been realised.1 The reasons for this are complex, but include difficulty interpreting the fetal heart rate trace correctly during labour.2, 3, 4 Computerised interpretation could be used to objectively detect abnormalities in fetal heart rate patterns during labour that are associated with asphyxia and bring them to the attention of birth attendants, who could then take action or expedite delivery and potentially prevent stillbirth or exposure to significant asphyxia.

Guardian (K2 Medical Systems, Plymouth, UK) is an electronic information capture system for managing information from labour monitoring.5 It displays the cardiotocograph on a computer screen alongside other clinical data either from external ultrasonographic transducers, or from fetal scalp electrodes (eg, partographs, maternal vital signs, details of maternal anaesthesia and analgesia) collected as part of routine clinical care. Guardian does not interpret any of the data gathered, but acts as an interface to collect and display data at the bedside, centrally on the labour ward, in consultants' offices, or remotely.

INFANT (K2 Medical Systems) is a decision-support software that was developed to run on the Guardian system. It analyses the quality of fetal heart signals and, if these signals are adequate, displays baseline heart rate; heart-rate variability; accelerations and type and timing of decelerations; the quality of the signal; and the contraction pattern.6, 7, 8 INFANT then makes an assessment of the overall pattern, which, if necessary, will result in a colour-coded alert (blue is the least severe, yellow is moderate severity, and red is the most severe; appendix). The decision-support software does not provide recommendations for any action that should be taken in response to abnormalities—such decisions are at the discretion of attending clinicians. In the UK's National Health Service (NHS), all clinicians supervising labour are expected to have been trained in the appropriate response to an abnormal cardiotocographic reading—eg, by completing computer-based training packages every 6–12 months, attending annual lectures, or attending regular cardiotocographic review meetings. However, training is not standardised, and individual competence is not assessed in most units.9

Research in context.

Evidence before the study

The National Institute for Health Research searched the Cochrane library, PubMed, NHS Evidence, and the DARE database for articles published in the 5 years before it commissioned this trial in 2006. No studies of electronic decision support in interpretation of cardiotocography were identified. One previous trial of decision support in labour has been done, in which direct measurement of the fetal electrocardiograph—which requires the application of a fetal scalp electrode—was used. That trial recruited 7730 women and showed no evidence of a difference between the groups on the primary outcome of metabolic acidosis as measured in cord blood.

Added value of this study

This trial, INFANT, was the first to assess the use of decision support in the interpretation of the cardiotocographs in women undergoing continuous electronic fetal heart-rate monitoring. The aim was to address the effect on substantive outcomes of neonatal mortality and morbidity. The size of the INFANT trial provides sufficient power to detect small differences in the main outcome of perinatal mortality and serious morbidity, and outcomes such as metabolic acidosis. No differences were noted. Additionally, it had very high power to assess whether use of this decision-support system had any effect on the risk of operative delivery, and again we noted no evidence of any difference.

Implications of all the available evidence

The quality of care in labour is a major concern for women, their families, and the health professionals providing care for them. Technologies to improve intrapartum monitoring that identify early signs of fetal hypoxia during labour are needed so that clinicians can intervene and attempt to prevent poor neonatal outcomes. Our results show that the method of decision support we tested does not achieve this aim.

We did a randomised controlled trial to test the hypotheses that a substantial proportion of substandard care results from failure to correctly identify abnormal fetal heart rate patterns, that improved recognition of abnormality would reduce substandard care and poor outcomes, and that improved recognition of normality would decrease unnecessary intervention.

Methods

Study design and participants

We did a pragmatic, unblinded, randomised controlled trial in maternity units in the UK and Ireland. All 24 sites in the UK and Ireland that used Guardian at the time of the trial took part. Doctors and midwives were able to recruit participants. Eligible women were judged to require continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring by the local clinical team on the basis of their existing practice, had a singleton or twin pregnancy, were at 35 weeks' gestation or further along, had no known gross fetal abnormality, including any known fetal heart arrhythmia such as heart block, aged 16 years or older, and able to give consent to participate as judged by the attending clinicians. Continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring during labour is not routine in the UK. Clinical guidance for the NHS recommends that women assessed as having a low risk of complications should be offered intermittent auscultation during labour.10

Pregnant women attending recruiting hospitals were provided with written information about the trial during pregnancy and in labour. For women who met the eligibility criteria, written informed consent was sought by means of a dated signature from the woman and from the person who obtained informed consent. Research ethics committee approval for the study was granted by the National Research Ethics Service—Northern and Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee (09/H0903/31). The study protocol has been published.11

Randomisation and masking

The Guardian system was used to confirm that all necessary eligibility criteria were met and then to randomly allocate women (1:1) to cardiotocography with or without decision support. The allocations were computer generated in Stata (version 10.1) by the trial statistician, who used stratified block randomisation, in which variable block sizes were used to balance between the two trial arms by whether the pregnancy was a singleton (block sizes 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24, allocated in proportion to the elements of Pascal's triangle—1:6:15:20:15:6:1) or twin (block sizes 2, 4, and 6, allocated in proportion to the elements of Pascal's triangle 1:2:1), and within each participating centre. The trial was not blinded, which allowed indirect measurement of any changes in clinician behaviour, such as how much time the attending midwife spent with the woman on the basis of the knowledge that the decision-support system was active or not.

Procedures

Clinicians in participating centres were trained in the use of the decision-support software by staff from the trial office. A training team at each site was responsible for cascading training among the local clinicians. Women in the trial were managed according to standard procedures. No additional training was provided to clinical staff in how to respond to fetal heart rate abnormalities.

Labour data and outcomes were stored contemporaneously on the Guardian system, which were then sent electronically to the trial office. Data were extracted from notes of babies admitted to the neonatal unit and for all neonatal deaths. All children surviving were flagged at the NHS Information Centre for those born in England and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Safe Haven for those born in Scotland, which meant that all deaths occurring after discharge in these countries could be identified. Ireland does not have a similar system for monitoring deaths, so Irish data had to be excluded from the denominator for these calculations. A sample of surviving children were followed up to age 2 years via a parent-completed questionnaire to assess the child's health, development, and wellbeing (appendix).

All babies with an adverse outcome potentially associated with intrapartum asphyxia (ie, the trial primary outcome plus cord artery pH <7·05 with base deficit 12 mmol/L or more) and all neonatal deaths and intrapartum stillbirths had their care in labour assessed by review of de-identified case notes by a panel comprising a senior obstetrician, neonatologist, and midwife, to see if care was suboptimal—ie, if it was possible or probable that different management would have prevented the adverse outcome.9, 12

Outcomes

The trial had two primary outcomes. The first was a binary (present or not present) composite of poor neonatal outcome, including deaths (intrapartum stillbirths plus neonatal deaths up to 28 days after birth, except for congenital anomalies deaths) and significant morbidity (moderate or severe neonatal encephalopathy, defined as the use of whole-body cooling or admission to the neonatal unit within 48 h of birth for 48 h or more with evidence of feeding difficulties or respiratory illness, with evidence of compromise at birth suggesting mild asphyxia or mild encephalopathy, or both). The second was a continuous outcome of developmental progress measured by the Parent Report of Children's Abilities—Revised (PARCA-R) composite score13, 14 at age 2 years for a subset of children.

Infant secondary outcomes, all of which are binary unless specified, were intrapartum stillbirth (excluding deaths from congenital anomalies); neonatal deaths up to 28 days after birth (excluding deaths from congenital anomalies); moderate or severe encephalopathy; admissions to the neonatal unit within 48 h of birth for 48 h or more with evidence of feeding difficulties or respiratory illness (when there was evidence of compromise at birth suggesting mild asphyxia or mild encephalopathy, or both); admission to a higher level of care; an Apgar score of less than 4 at 5 min; distribution of cord blood gas data for cord artery pH; metabolic acidosis (cord artery pH <7·05 and base deficit of 12 mmol/L or more); resuscitation interventions (categorical); seizures; destination immediately after birth (categorical); length of hospital stay (continuous); health and development outcomes at 24 months (continuous); score on the non-verbal cognition scale (continuous), vocabulary sub-scale (continuous), and sentence complexity sub-scale (continuous) of PARCA-R; deaths to 24 months; major disability and non-major disability at 2 years; and cerebral palsy. Maternal secondary outcomes were mode of delivery (categorical); operative intervention (caesarean section and instrumental delivery) for fetal indications, failure to progress, a combination of fetal indications and failure to progress, or any other reason; grade or urgency of caesarean section15 (categorical); episiotomy; any episode of fetal blood sampling; length of first stage, length of second stage, and total length of labour from trial entry (continuous); destination immediately after birth (categorical); and admission to a higher level of care.

Because trial allocation was not blinded, it was important to measure any change in clinical care that could result from clinicians being aware of whether the decision-support system was in operation. We measured the total number of cardiotocographic abnormalities and the proportion of women with cardiotocographic abnormalities in each arm; the time taken between last red alert and delivery (for these first three outcomes, we retrospectively used the decision-support software after the trial was over to analyse the cardiotocographic trace, and used these data to determine when the alert would have occurred); the number of routine measurements recorded during labour, including the number of vaginal examinations, use of epidural analgesia, use of labour augmentation, and presence of meconium; and the number of thumb entries (similar to a signature in paper notes) per hour from time of trial entry to first yellow level of concern or until the cervix was fully dilated (as a proxy measure to assess presence of a health professional in the delivery room during the labour).

Statistical analysis

A sample size of 46 000 births was needed.11 We postulated an incidence of the primary outcome of three per 1000 births by summing the previous reported rates of intrapartum stillbirth, neonatal death, moderate and severe encephalopathy, and mild encephalopathy (reliable data for significant asphyxial morbidity were not available and so could only be estimated).16, 17, 18 The effect size that could be detected with 46 000 women (23 000 in each group), assuming a 5% level of significance and 90% power, was a 50% reduction in poor neonatal outcomes from three to 1·5 per 1000. In a study of preterm infants,14 the mean PARCA-R composite score at 2 years was 80 (SD 33) and the mean Mental Development Index (Bayley Scales of Infant Development II) was around half an SD below the mean of 100. Assuming that a healthy group of term infants would have a PARCA-R composite score half an SD higher than this sample of preterm infants, we estimated a mean 2 year score of 96 (SD 33). A follow-up sample of size 7000 (3500 per arm) had more than 90% power to detect a difference of 3 points in the PARCA-R component score with a two-sided 5% significance level. The incidence of severe metabolic acidosis (cord artery pH <7·05) is ten per 1000.19, 20, 21, 22 A sample of 46 000 women enabled us to detect a 28% relative risk reduction in this incidence with more than 80% power, assuming a 5% level of significance, in babies in whom cord artery pH was measured.

During the early part of the trial, and with advice from the data-monitoring committee, the primary outcome definition was refined to ensure that it captured babies who were likely to have experienced hypoxia during labour. The original component of the primary outcome—admission to neonatal unit within 48 h of birth for 48 h or more with evidence of feeding difficulties, respiratory illness, or encephalopathy—resulted in the inclusion of many babies with a range of disorders, many of which were unlikely to be related to hypoxia. Each case fulfilling this component of the primary outcome was reviewed by an independent panel of neonatologists (who were blinded to allocation) to ascribe it as fulfilling the revised definition or not (appendix).

The trial steering committee approved the statistical analysis plan before the analysis (appendix). For the main comparative analysis, participants were analysed in the groups into which they were randomly allocated, irrespective of allocation received. All women and babies with available data were included, except for women for whom a valid signed consent form could not be located or women who withdrew consent. The numbers and percentages of babies in whom the primary outcomes were noted are for each group, and the risk ratios plus 95% CIs were calculated. Risk ratios were estimated with generalised linear models with a binomial distribution and a log link (or a Poisson distribution with a log link if convergence could not be achieved). Hazard ratios were estimated with Cox regression and rate ratios with Poisson regression. We adjusted for the stratification factors used in the randomisation (centre and singleton or twin pregnancy), and used robust variance estimators in all models to account for the correlation in outcomes between twins and siblings delivered in a subsequent pregnancy during the trial period.11 The mean (SD) PARCA-R composite score was calculated for each group, and the mean difference between groups plus 95% CI were calculated and compared with a Gaussian model with identity link. For secondary outcomes including the components of the primary outcome, a 1% level of significance was employed.

We did prespecified subgroup analyses with the statistical test for interaction for singletons versus twins, suspected fetal growth restriction at labour onset versus no growth restriction, body-mass index group, and centre. These analyses were done for the trial primary outcomes, all neonatal outcomes, instrumental vaginal deliveries, and caesarean section. Additionally, we did a subgroup analysis of all process outcomes by centre. Major disability at 2 years was classified in terms of neuromotor function, seizures, auditory function, communication, visual function, cognitive function, and other physical disability.23, 24

We used Stata/SE for Windows (version 13.1) for all analyses. The trial was overseen by an independent trial steering committee and an independent data-monitoring committee. The data-monitoring committee used the Haybittle-Peto approach25 for interim analyses, with three SEs as the cutoff for consideration of early cessation, preserving the type-1 error across the trial.

The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 98680152.

Role of the funding source

The funder of the study had no role in the trial design; data collection, analysis, or interpretation; or writing of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Results

Between Jan 6, 2010, and Aug 31, 2013, 47 062 women were recruited to the INFANT trial (appendix). 1020 women (2·2%) were excluded from the analysis of the primary outcome (figure; appendix), mostly because of missing or incomplete consent forms. Data at the time of birth were available for 100% of women and babies eligible to be analysed. Follow-up data at 2 years were available for 7066 of those contacted; data were sufficiently complete for 6707 children.

Figure.

Figure

Trial profile

The 46 042 women included in the analysis includes 448 women with two singleton birth episodes and six women with one singleton and one twin birth episode in the study period. The allocation received for the subsequent delivery was independent of the first allocation received. 30 of 21 509† infants in the decision-support group and 37 of 21 599† infants in the no-decision-support group died before 24 months. Parent Report of Children's Abilities—Revised (PARCA-R). *One woman who withdrew (with consent to use of data) was also randomly assigned in error. †Data from the Ireland not included in the numerator (n=1 decision support) or denominator (n=1754 in decision support and n=1752 in no decision support) because data for deaths after discharge were not available; deaths in the flow chart include stillbirths (n=1 in decision support and n=2 in no decision support).

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups (table 1). Median maternal age was 29 years (IQR 25–33). Around 60% of women were having their first baby, and most women had a gestational age between 38 and 41 completed weeks (table 1). Very few women had a previous stillbirth (1%) and around 6% had previously had a previous caesarean section (table 1). Almost 60% of women had their labour induced.

Table 1.

Maternal characteristics at trial entry

Decision support (n=22 987)* No decision support (n=23 055)*
Median age, years 29 (25–33) 29 (25–33)
Ethnic group
White 17 234 (83·3%) 17 213 (83·0%)
Indian 743 (3·6%) 724 (3·5%)
Pakistani 736 (3·6%) 802 (3·9%)
Bangladeshi 98 (0·5%) 113 (0·5%)
Black Caribbean 116 (0·6%) 135 (0·7%)
Black African 461 (2·2%) 505 (2·4%)
Any other ethnic group 1296 (6·3%) 1249 (6·0%)
Unknown 2303 2314
Twin pregnancy 276 (1·2%) 296 (1·3%)
Gestational age, completed weeks
Median 40 (39–41) 40 (39–41)
<35 weeks 4 (<1%) 6 (<1%)
35 weeks to 37 weeks, 6 days 2529 (11·0%) 2522 (10·9%)
38 weeks to 39 weeks, 6 days 7322 (31·9%) 7266 (31·5%)
40 weeks to 41 weeks, 6 days 11 688 (50·9%) 11 795 (51·2%)
≥42 weeks 1437 (6·3%) 1457 (6·3%)
Body-mass index (at booking visit)
Median 25 (22–30) 25 (22–30)
<18·5 379 (2·5%) 384 (2·6%)
18·5– 24·9 6302 (42·1%) 6225 (41·6%)
25·0–29·9 4531 (30·2%) 4560 (30·5%)
30·0–34·9 2178 (14·5%) 2237 (14·9%)
35·0–39·9 1024 (6·8%) 1025 (6·8%)
≥40·0 565 (3·8%) 544 (3·6%)
Unknown 8008 8080
Smoking (at booking visit)
Yes 2448 (14·3%) 2536 (14·7%)
No 14 724 (85·7%) 14 722 (85·3%)
Unknown 5815 5797
Parity
Nulliparous 13 736 (59·8%) 13 650 (59·2%)
Parous 9247 (40·2%) 9390 (40·8%)
Obstetric history
Stillbirth 273 (1·2%) 223 (1·0%)
Elective caesarean section 208 (0·9%) 253 (1·1%)
Emergency caesarean section 1240 (5·4%) 1224 (5·3%)
Neonatal death 80 (0·4%) 95 (0·4%)
Cervical dilatation at trial entry (cm)
Median 4 (2–6) 4 (2–5)
Unknown 16 184 16 339
Fetal growth restriction suspected at labour onset 859 (3·7%) 914 (4·0%)
Labour induction
Induced 13 516 (59·2%) 13 568 (59·2%)
Spontaneous 8955 (39·2%) 8967 (39·2%)
No labour 376 (1·7%) 367 (1·6%)
Epidural analgesia
Yes 2682 (26·0%) 2766 (26·8%)
No 7628 (74·0%) 7549 (73·2%)
Unknown 12 677 12 740
Presence of meconium
Yes 449 (4·5%) 454 (4·5%)
No 9454 (95·5%) 9535 (95·5)
Unknown 13 084 13 066

Data are median (IQR), n, or n (%). Missing data are <1%, unless otherwise presented; there were no apparent differences in missing data between trial arms.

*

Women with more than one birth episode in the study period are included more than once (n=454).

As coded by the UK National Health Service.

These data were collected only from 2013 at most centres.

The incidence of the primary outcome—poor neonatal outcome—did not differ significantly between the groups (table 2). 172 (0·7%) of 23 263 babies had a poor outcome in the decision-support group compared with 171 (0·7%) of 23 351 babies in the no-decision-support group (adjusted risk ratio [RR] 1·01, 95% CI 0·82–1·25; table 2). Similarly, we noted no evidence of a difference in any component of the composite primary outcome between the groups (table 2). A prespecified sensitivity analysis, in which we used a different cutoff for defining compromise at birth (a score of 7 or greater indicating very severe compromise rather than a score of 3 or greater on a scale from 0 to 14), made no difference to the interpretation of the measure of effect for the primary outcome (adjusted RR 0·97, 95% CI 0·58–1·63; appendix). We noted no evidence of any differences in any of the trial's secondary outcomes for the baby (table 2), including Apgar scores, admission to the neonatal unit, metabolic acidosis of cord blood samples, the need for neonatal resuscitation, or duration of hospital stay.

Table 2.

Primary and secondary outcomes

Decision support (n=23 263) No decision support (n=23 351) Adjusted risk ratio (CI)
Composite neonatal primary outcome
Composite primary outcome* 172 (0·7%) 171 (0·7%) 1·01 (95% CI 0·82–1·25)
Intrapartum stillbirths 1 (0) 2 (0) 0·50 (95% CI 0·05–5·53)
Neonatal deaths up to 28 days after birth 6 (0) 4 (0) 1·51 (95% CI 0·42–5·33)
Moderate or severe neonatal encephalopathy (requiring cooling) 18 (0·1%) 21 (0·1%) 0·86 (95% CI 0·46–1·61)
Admission to neonatal unit within 48 h of birth for ≥48 h because of feeding difficulties, respiratory illness or symptoms, or encephalopathy and evidence of compromise at birth 147 (0·6%) 144 (0·6%) 1·02 (95% CI 0·81–1·29)
Other neonatal outcomes
Admission to a higher level of care 1389 (6·0%) 1429 (6·1%) 0·98 (99% CI 0·89–1·08)
Apgar score <4 at 5 min 43 (0·2%) 65 (0·3%) 0·67 (99% CI 0·40–1·11)
Cord artery pH
<7·15 1625 (11·3%) 1695 (11·8%) 0·96 (99% CI 0·88–1·04)
<7·05 268 (1·9%) 278 (1·9%) 0·95 (99% CI 0·77–1·19)
Mean (SD) 7·24 (0·08) 7·24 (0·08) ··
Unknown 8829 8981 ··
Metabolic acidosis§
Yes 148 (1·1%) 131 (1·0%) 1·12 (99% CI 0·82–1·52)
No 13 538 (98·9%) 13 533 (99·0%) ··
Unknown 9577 9687 ··
Resuscitation
None 18 457 (87·3%) 18 605 (87·6%) ··
One intervention 2139 (10·1%) 2116 (10·0%) 1·03 (99% CI 0·96–1·09)
Two or more interventions 554 (2·6%) 524 (2·5%) ··
Unknown 2113 2106 ··
Seizures in hospital 39 (0·2%) 41 (0·2%) 0·95 (99% 0·54–1·70)
Destination of baby immediately after birth
Postnatal ward 21 571 (93·6%) 21 664 (93·6%) ··
Home 467 (2·0%) 485 (2·1%) 1·00|| (99% CI 0·99–1·00)
Transitional care unit 277 (1·2%) 235 (1·0%) ··
Neonatal unit 653 (2·8%) 690 (3·0%) ··
Transferred hospital 4 (0) 7 (0) ··
Stillbirth 1 (0) 2 (0) ··
Other 69 (0·3%) 53 (0·2%) ··
Median length of hospital stay, days 2 (1–3) 2 (1–3) 0·99** (99% CI 0·97–1·01)
Delivery outcomes
Mode of delivery
Spontaneous cephalic vaginal 11 823 (50·8%) 11 959 (51·2%) 0·99 (99% CI 0·97–1·01)
Caesarean section 5669 (24·4%) 5555 (23·8%) ··
Instrumental 5698 (24·5%) 5765 (24·7%) ··
Vaginal breech 73 (0·3%) 72 (0·3%) ··
Indications for any operative intervention (caesarean section and instrumental delivery)
Fetal distress 4278 (18·4%) 4262 (18·3%) 1·04† † (99% CI 1·00–1·08)
Failure to progress 5059 (21·8%) 5175 (22·2%) 1·01† † (99% CI 0·97–1·05)
Fetal distress and failure to progress 1774 (7·6%) 1599 (6·9%) ··
Other reason 229 (1·0%) 247 (1·1%) ··
Indication for instrumental vaginal deliveries
Fetal distress 2608 (11·2%) 2559 (11·0%) 1·03† † (99% CI 0·97–1·09)
Failure to progress 2262 (9·7%) 2396 (10·3%) 0·97† † (99% CI 0·91–1·03)
Fetal distress and failure to progress 700 (3·0%) 660 (2·8%) ··
Other reason 117 (0·5%) 134 (0·6%) ··
Caesarean section
Grade 1 (immediate threat to life) 1138 (4·9%) 1121 (4·8%) 1·02‡ ‡ (99% CI 0·92–1·13)
Grade 2 (some threat of compromise) 3754 (16·2%) 3605 (15·5%) 1·04‡ ‡ (99% CI 0·99–1·09)
Grade 3 (no threat of compromise) 645 (2·8%) 689 (3·0%) 1·02‡ ‡ (99% CI 0·98–1·07)
Grade 4 (elective) 12 (0·1%) 12 (0·1%) ··
Episiotomy§§
Yes 6396 (28·9%) 6498 (29·3%) 0·99 (99% CI 0·95–1·03)
Unknown 826 840 ··
Any episode of fetal blood sampling§§ 2366 (10·3%) 2187 (9·5%) 1·08 (99% CI 1·01–1·16)
Destination of mother immediately after birth§§
Ward 21 554 (94·6%) 21 614 (94·5%) ··
Home 429 (1·9%) 462 (2·0%) 1·00¶¶ (99% CI 0·99–1·00)
Intensive-care unit 15 (0·1%) 19 (0·1%) ··
High-dependency unit 793 (3·5%) 768 (3·4%) ··
Theatre 0 (0) 0 (0) ··
Other hospital 0 (0) 8 (0) ··
Admission to a higher level of care§§ 1245 (5·4%) 1193 (5·2%) 1·05 (99% CI 0·95–1·16)
Duration of labour
No labour 378 371 ··
Seemingly randomised after delivery 92 120 ··
Length of labour from trial entry (min)||||
Geometric mean and geometric mean ratio 379 381 0·99 (99% CI 0·98–1·01)
Median 404 (234–638) 408 (236–640) ··
Unknown 871 924 ··
Length of first stage from trial entry (min)||||
Geometric mean and geometric mean ratio 169 168 1·01 (99% CI 0·98–1·04)
Median 200 (100–351) 201 (96–354) ··
Unknown 6422 6292 ··
Length of second stage from trial entry (min)||||
Geometric mean and geometric mean ratio 39 39 0·99 (99% CI 0·96–1·03)
Median 49 (15–113) 50 (16–114) ··
Unknown 6036 5934 ··

Data are n (%), n, or median (IQR), unless otherwise specified. Missing data are <1% unless otherwise presented. Risk ratios were adjusted for stratification factors used in the randomisation (centre and twin birth) and clustering because of twins and multiple birth episodes. Minimisation factors were not adjusted for in the analysis of intrapartum stillbirths, neonatal deaths, and neonatal encephalopathy because of the small number of events. Crude effect measures were not presented as identical to one decimal place (two decimal places for most outcomes). CI=confidence interval.

*

The components of the primary outcome are mutually exclusive and outcomes listed higher take precedence over those listed below them—eg, if a baby with neonatal encephalopathy died within 28 days, the outcome would be recorded as neonatal death.

Excludes stillbirths due to congenital anomalies.

Excludes deaths due to congenital anomalies; deaths after hospital discharge not reported for Ireland.

§

Cord artery pH <7·05, base deficit ≥12mmol/L.

Risk ratio of one or more interventions vs none.

||

Risk ratio of ward or home vs all other destinations (if known).

**

This figure is a hazard ratio rather than a risk ratio.

††

Risk ratio for fetal distress and risk ratio for failure to progress include (in the numerator) deliveries in the third category for which both fetal distress and failure to progress were recorded.

‡‡

Risk ratios based on cumulative totals for grade—ie, grade 1 vs all other deliveries, grade 1–2 vs all other deliveries, and grade 1–3 vs all other deliveries.

§§

n=22 987 in the decision-support group and 23 055 in the no-decision-support group (ie, the number of women, rather than the number of infants) for all outcomes after this row.

¶¶

Risk ratio of ward or home vs all other destinations (if known).

||||

Denominators exclude women with no labour, seemingly randomised after delivery, and unknown length of labour.

Just over half of all births were spontaneous vaginal births and the frequency did not differ significantly between the two groups (adjusted RR 0·99, 99% CI 0·97–1·01; table 2). More women underwent fetal blood sampling in the decision-support group than in the no-decision-support group (2366 [10·3%] vs 2187 [9·5%]; adjusted RR 1·08, 99% CI 1·01–1·16). No other significant differences were noted between the two groups from trial entry to birth in terms of clinical outcomes (table 2).

For babies with an adverse outcome and cord metabolic acidosis who underwent expert review, the overall proportion of babies judged to have received suboptimal care likely to have affected the outcome was 38%—14 of 35 babies in the decision-support group and 13 of 36 babies in the control group—which is similar to that reported previously.26 We could not investigate whether in all cases not reviewed appropriate action was taken in response to recognised abnormality.

In women with any level of concern as measured by INFANT (table 3), blue levels of concern were most frequent (median seven alerts during labour—roughly 1·1 per h), followed by yellow alerts (median two alerts per labour), and then red alerts (median one per labour). A lower rate of yellow levels of concern was noted in the decision-support group compared with the no-decision-support group (adjusted rate ratio 0·87, 99% CI 0·84–0·89; table 3). Frequency of blue and red alerts did not differ significantly between groups (table 3).

Table 3.

Process outcomes after trial entry

Decision support (n=22 517) No decision support*(n=22 564) Adjusted effect measure (99% CI)
Epidural analgesia
Yes 2770 (27·3%) 2689 (26·5%) Risk ratio 1·03 (99% CI 0·97–1·09)
No 7383 (72·7%) 7453 (73·5%) ··
Unknown 12 364 12 422 ··
Labour augmentation
Yes 2705 (30·9%) 2750 (31·3%) Risk ratio 0·99 (99% CI 0·93–1·04)
No 6047 (69·1%) 6042 (68·7%) ··
Unknown 13 765 13 772 ··
Presence of meconium ·· ··
Yes 440 (4·5%) 469 (4·8%) Risk ratio 0·94 (99% CI 0·80–1·11)
No 9316 (95·5%) 9346 (95·2%) ··
Unknown 12 761 12 749 ··
At least one blue, yellow, or red level of concern 21 950 (97·5%) 22 021 (97·6%) Risk ratio 1·00 (99% CI 1·00–1·00)
At least one blue level of concern (mild abnormality) 21 863 (97·1%) 21 913 (97·1%) Risk ratio 1·00 (99% CI 1·00–1·00)
At least one yellow level of concern (moderate abnormality) 16 765 (74·5%) 16 722 (74·1%) Risk ratio 1·00 (99% CI 0·99–1·02)
At least one red level of concern (severe abnormality) 2335 (10·8%) 2413 (11·1%) Risk ratio 0·97 (99% CI 0·90–1·04)
Unknown 822 833 ··
Blue, yellow, or red levels of concern in women with at least one level of concern
Median 9 (5–15) 9 (5–15) ··
Rate (per h) 1·37 1·40 Rate ratio 0·98 (99% CI 0·96–1·00)
Unknown§ 765 824
Blue levels of concern in women with a blue level
Median 7 (4–11) 7 (4–11) ··
Rate (per h) 1·06 1·05 Rate ratio 1·01 (99% CI 0·99–1·03)
Unknown§ 740 800 ··
Yellow levels of concern in women with a yellow level
Median 2 (1–4) 2 (1–5) ··
Rate (per h) 0·35 0·40 Rate ratio 0·87 (99% CI 0·84–0·89)
Unknown§ 354 421 ··
Red levels of concern in women with a red level
Median 1 (1–1) 1 (1–1) ··
Rate (per h) 0·14 0·14 Rate ratio 0·98 (99% CI 0·92–1·04)
Unknown§ 41 55 ··
Interaction with Guardian system
Median 5 (0–16) 4 (0–15) ··
Rate (per h) 4·22 4·21 Rate ratio 0·99 (99% CI 0·95–1·03)
Unknown 1723 1603 ··
Vaginal examinations
Median 2 (1–3) 2 (1–3) ··
Rate (per h) 0·28 0·27 Rate ratio 1·03 (99% CI 1·00–1·05)
Unknown 877 929 ··
Time from last red level of concern to delivery (mins)
Median 58 (13–279) 58 (13–264) HR 0·99 (99% CI 0·92–1·06)
Unknown 822 823 ··

Data are n (%), n, or median (IQR), unless otherwise specified. Women with no labour or seemingly randomised after delivery were not included in calculations in this table, which is why the denominators differ from those in the footnotes of table 2. Effect measures were adjusted for stratification factors used in the randomisation (centre and twin birth) and clustering as a result of twins and multiple birth episodes. Crude effect measures are not presented as identical to one decimal place (two decimal places for most outcomes). CI=confidence interval. HR=hazard ratio.

*

For the control group with cardiotocographic monitoring only, decision-support software was used retrospectively to determine when an alert would have sounded.

These data were only recorded and uploaded for analysis from 2013 for most centres.

Data for timing of red level of concerns not available for two centres—Warwick (n=823) and Derby (n=832)·

§

Women with missing length of labour were not included in calculation of rates and rate ratios.

Measured via number of thumbprint entries from time of trial entry to first yellow level of concern, or until cervix fully dilated if no abnormality detected.

Although there was a worry that women in the decision-support group would be left alone more frequently during labour than those in the no-decision-support group, the frequency of thumbprint entries on the Guardian did not differ significantly between groups (4·22 per h vs 4·21; adjusted rate ratio 0·99, 99% CI 0·95–1·03; table 3).

Time from the last red level of concern to birth was similar in both groups (median 58 min; table 3). In a subgroup of 473 readable traces from a sample of 500 taken as a similar number of consecutive cases from each contributing centre, the last red level of concern was judged (by expert investigator, PS) to be a valid fetal concern for 276 (58%) traces. Maternal heart rate triggered the red level of concern in 128 (27%) cases, misclassified accelerations in 36 (8%) cases, and other reasons in 33 (7%) cases.

Families were contacted when their surviving child or children born reached age 2 years. Nearly 7000 families returned a questionnaire. The characteristics of the mothers who responded differed significantly from those of the entire trial cohort and from those of mothers who did not respond (appendix). Compared with the entire trial cohort, responders were more likely to be white, to have given birth at a later gestational age, and to have been having their first baby (appendix).

Of the 7066 infants for whom a questionnaire was returned, data could be analysed for 6707 (95%). We noted no significant differences between the two groups for any of the 2 year outcomes, including the primary outcome, PARCA-R score (table 4). Nearly 6% of children for whom data were available had a major disability. The classification of disability23, 24 used meant that large numbers of children were assigned a major disability as a result of having poor growth (between 2·8% and 3·0% of all children) and cognitive difficulties (between 1·2% and 1·5% of all children). Other major disabilities such as physical disability, blindness, and deafness were all very uncommon (appendix).

Table 4.

Health and development outcomes at 2 years in a sample of surviving infants without the primary outcome selected for follow-up

Decision support (n=3556) No decision support (n=3510) Adjusted effect measure (CI)
PARCA-R composite score
Mean (SD) 98·0 (33·8) 97·2 (33·4) Mean difference 0·63 (95% CI −0·98 to 2·25)
Median (IQR) 98 (73–126) 97 (72–125) ··
Unknown 175 184 ··
PARCA-R non-verbal cognition scale
Mean (SD) 27·7 (3·7) 28·0 (3·6) Mean difference −0·22 (99% CI −0·44 to 0·01)
Median (IQR) 28 (26–30) 28 (26–31) ··
PARCA-R vocabulary sub-scale
Mean (SD) 57·4 (27·8) 56·5 (27·7) Mean difference 0·82 (99% CI −0·91 to 2·54)
Median (IQR) 58 (36–81) 56 (35–80) ··
PARCA-R sentence complexity sub-scale
Mean (SD) 12·4 (5·4) 12·3 (5·3) Mean difference 0·07 (99% CI −0·26 to 0·41)
Median (IQR) 12 (9–16) 12 (9–16) ··
Cerebral palsy
n (%) 4 (0·1%) 4 (0·1%) RR 0·99 (99% CI 0·16 to 6·10)
Unknown (n) 111 114 ··
Non-major or major disability* ·· ·· RR 1·08 (99% CI 0·98 to 1·18)
n (%) 942 (40·4%) 840 (37·4%) ··
Unknown (n) 1225 1266 ··
Major disability*
n (%) 134 (5·7%) 135 (6·0%) RR 0·95 (99% CI 0·70 to 1·29)
Unknown (n) 1225 1266 ··

Missing data are <3% unless otherwise presented; there were no apparent differences in missing data between trial arms. Effect measures were adjusted for stratification factors used in the randomisation (centre and twin birth) and clustering as a result of twins and multiple birth episodes. Stratification factors were not adjusted for in the analysis of infant deaths at 2 years and cerebral palsy because of the small number of events. Crude effect measures were not presented as identical to one decimal place (two decimal places for most outcomes). At 2 years, 29 (0·13%) of 21 508 infants had died in the decision-support group and 35 (0·16%) of 21 597 infants had died in the no-decision-support group (adjusted RR 0·83 [99% CI 0·44–1·59])—all deaths were reported to age 2 years excluding stillbirths (one in the decision-support group and two in the no-decision-support group). Data from Ireland were not included in the numerator (n=1 in the decision-support group) or denominator (n=1754 in decision-support group and n=1752 in the no-decision-support group) because data for deaths after discharge were not available. CI=confidence interval. PARCA-R=Parent Report of Children's Abilities—Revised. RR=risk ratio.

*

Disability in any of neuromotor function, seizures, auditory function, communication, visual function, cognitive function, or other physical disability.

We noted no evidence that the decision-support software performed significantly differently between any of the pre-specified subgroups for either the primary outcome or a range of secondary outcomes (appendix). Furthermore, no differences were noted in the distribution of cord blood pH measurements (appendix). The number of alerts differed significantly by centre, but no other significant differences were noted by centre (appendix).

Discussion

In this trial of more than 46 000 women, we found no evidence that the use of decision-support software in conjunction with cardiotocography reduced the likelihood of poor neonatal outcomes compared with cardiotocography alone.

In another randomised trial, which also recruited in the UK, the use of decision support was assessed in women monitored during labour with fetal electrocardiographic monitoring.27 This study also showed no evidence that decision support improved the primary outcome of cord blood metabolic acidosis in 7730 women.27 The results of one small trial28 of 220 women in Bulgaria have suggested that decision support is associated with benefits with respect to cord blood metabolic acidosis. In the UK continuous electronic fetal heart-rate monitoring is not routine, making generalisability to settings in which it is routine less certain.

The strengths of this study are its contemporaneous data collection and size. Potential weaknesses include the challenges of use of a composite primary outcome measure, the potential for staff to learn from exposure to the decision-support arm of the trial, resulting in improved outcomes in the control arm, and the issue of accounting for multiple comparisons.

Use of a composite primary outcome might not always be helpful if different components of the outcome respond differently to the intervention.29 We initially hypothesised that the components of the outcome would have similar incidences, with each component likely to contribute around a third to the composite. Estimates of the incidence of these components for eligible women were difficult to find before the trial began.11 The perinatal mortality in our study (13 per 46 614 babies [0·3 per 1000]) was lower than the previous estimate (1·05 per 1000), and the incidence of neonatal encephalopathy requiring cooling was also lower than previous estimates (0·8 per 1000 vs 1·3 per 1000).11 However, the incidence of prolonged admission to neonatal units with evidence of compromise at birth, for which we had no good data when planning the trial, occurred more frequently (291 per 46 614 [six per 1000]) and contributed substantially more to the higher-than-anticipated overall primary event rate of seven per 1000 compared with our estimated three per 1000. This frequency afforded us power to detect smaller differences in the composite outcome than we had originally planned.

The potential weakness of staff learning from exposure to the decision-support system was identified when planning the trial. We acknowledged that passive learning from the decision-support system would be possible. However, part of our previous hypothesis was that, although some poor cardiotocographic interpretation is due to a lack of training, some clinicians have poor intrinsic pattern-recognition abilities, which, by definition, would not be affected by training, and the performance of such clinicians would be particularly improved by assistance from automatic interpretation. We collected a range of process outcomes to measure the impact on clinician behaviour during the trial, and these data suggested some evidence for behaviour change in the decision-support arm: fetal blood sampling was more frequent and the incidence of repeated yellow alerts lower than in the control group. Perhaps different action was taken in response to the alerts in the decision-support arm of the trial—eg, clinicians might have reduced the dose of an oxytocin infusion in women having their labour augmented if the infusion was leading to very frequent contractions. Such actions could have prevented further yellow alerts, leading to a decrease in this group, although we do not have any direct evidence for this scenario. Even if this effect did occur, it did not result in any significant change in clinical outcomes. Although the median time from last level of red concern to birth might seem lengthy (58 min), some red levels of concern did not prompt immediate delivery—eg, the cardiotocographic monitor picking up the maternal heart rate.

We accounted for multiple comparisons in the trial by using 99% CIs for all secondary outcomes. Significant findings in secondary outcomes require careful interpretation irrespective of the level of significance, and factors such as the strength of the finding and plausibility need to be taken into account.30 In this trial, the only two significant findings relate to behaviour change in clinicians favouring decision support. These findings were in the expected direction of effect and are mutually supportive, suggestive of a real effect.

Detection of abnormalities in the fetal heart rate can improve outcome only if caregivers respond appropriately to the alerts. A review of all severe adverse outcomes in the trial showed no evidence of differences in suboptimal care between the two groups. Therefore our hypothesis that substandard care is largely related to failure to identify pathological fetal heart-rate patterns is not supported. Most adverse outcomes associated with preventable substandard care seemed to involve failure to take appropriate management decisions once the cardiotocographic abnormality had been recognised. This aspect will be reported in detail in a follow-up paper. Our hypothesis that unnecessary intervention would be reduced was also not supported.

The decision-support software used in this trial identifies fetal heart-rate abnormalities.6, 7, 8 However, the alerts do not take into account other information about the labour, such as duration of labour, the rate of labour progress, and presence of meconium, all of which could modify the way a clinician interprets the fetal heart rate and acts on this information. Further development of decision-support software could improve the quality of feedback that the system provides to clinicians to make a difference to outcomes. In view of the importance for parents, clinicians, and health services of the consequences of intrapartum hypoxia, identification of signs of early compromise during labour so that timely intervention can be used to reduce poor outcomes is an urgent unmet need.

Correspondence to: Prof Peter Brocklehurst, Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK p.brocklehurst@bham.ac.uk

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (project number 06.38.01). SK was partly funded by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West Midlands. The quality-of-care review panel consisted of an obstetrician (PS), neonatologist (Ilya Kovar), and midwife (Christina McKenzie) for all sessions except one, when CM was replaced by Mary Griffin. Previous funding from the UK Medical Research Council enabled the initial development of Guardian and the INFANT software. The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not reflect those of the UK NHS, NIHR, the UK Medical Research Council, Central Commissioning Facility, NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, the Health Technology Assessment programme, or the Department of Health.

Contributors

All members of the writing committee contributed to the development of the protocol and management and running of the trial. LL did the analyses. PB wrote the Article, and revised it with input from all authors. All authors read and approved the final Article.

Writing committee

Peter Brocklehurst, David Field, Keith Greene, Ed Juszczak, Sara Kenyon, Louise Linsell, Christopher Mabey, Mary Newburn, Rachel Plachcinski, Maria Quigley, Elizabeth Schroeder, Philip Steer.

Co-investigator group

Peter Brocklehurst, David Field, Keith Greene, Ed Juszczak, Robert Keith, Sara Kenyon, Louise Linsell, Christopher Mabey, Mary Newburn, Rachel Plachcinski, Maria Quigley, Elizabeth Schroeder, Philip Steer.

Recruiting centres

Birmingham Women's Hospital (Nina Johns, Tracey Johnston, Gemma Barnfield, Karen Davies), Chelsea and Westminster Hospital (Mark Johnson, Holly Patterson), Derriford Hospital, Plymouth (Imogen Montague, Sally Watmore, Alison Stolton), Homerton University Hospital (Maryam Parisaei, Natasha McGhee, Silvia Segovia), Lancashire Women & Newborn Centre (Elizabeth Martindale, Hilary Jackson, Josephine Holleran), Liverpool Women's Hospital (Devender Roberts, Siobhan Holt), Northwick Park Hospital (Bosko Dragovic, Miriam Willmott-Powell, Laura Hutchinson, Benedek Toth, Gemma Chandler, Suzanne Ridley), Nottingham City Hospital (George Bugg, Anna Molnar, Denise Lochrie), Princess Anne Hospital (Jillian Connor, David Howe, Katie Head, Sue Wellstead), Princess Royal Hospital (Alan Mathers, Laura Walker, Isobel Crawford), Queen Alexandra Hospital (David Davies, Zoe Garner, Lucy Galloway), Queen's Medical Centre (George Bugg, Yvette Davies, Carys Smith, Gill Perkins), Rotunda Hospital (Mike Geary, Fiona Walsh, Ursula Nagle), Royal Blackburn Hospital (Elizabeth Martindale, Hilary Jackson, Louise O'Malley), Royal Bolton Hospital (Narmada Katakam, Heather White, Emma Tanton), Royal Derby Hospital (Rosie Hamilton, Hilary Glanowski, Ethel Forde), Southern General Hospital (Alan Mathers, Christina MacDonald, Lorna McKay), St Mary's Hospital (Leroy Edoziern, Paula Doran, Julie Dillon, Cara Taylor, Paula Evans), Stoke Mandeville Hospital (Veronica Miller, Christopher Wayne, Julie Tebbutt, Ellie Hendy), University College London Hospital (Patrick O'Brien, Seni Subair, Helen Dent, Camille Mallet), University Hospital of Coventry and Warwickshire (Siobhan Quenby, Jane Hillen), University Hospital of North Staffordshire (Peter Young, Tracey Harrison, Louise Wood), Warrington Hospital (Rita Arya, Lindsay Roughley), Warwick Hospital (Olanrewaju Sorinola, Carole Rogers, Janet Phipps).

Trial steering committee

Bob Arndtz, Denis Azzopardi, Zoe Chivers, Andy Cole, Max Parmar (chair until November, 2015), Tracy Roberts, Julia Sanders, Derek Tuffnell (chair from November, 2015).

Data-monitoring committee

Deborah Ashby (chair), Jane Norman, Andy Shennan, Helen Spiby, Win Tin.

Declaration of interests

KG is a founding shareholder of K2 Medical Systems, and was clinical director for development of the INFANT and Guardian systems until 2005. CM is an employee and shareholder of K2 Medical Systems. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Contributor Information

The INFANT Collaborative Group:

Peter Brocklehurst, David Field, Keith Greene, Ed Juszczak, Robert Keith, Sara Kenyon, Louise Linsell, Christopher Mabey, Mary Newburn, Rachel Plachcinski, Maria Quigley, Elizabeth Schroeder, and Philip Steer

Supplementary Material

Supplementary appendix
mmc1.pdf (1.7MB, pdf)

References

  • 1.Alfirevic Z, Devane D, Gyte GML. Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;5 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006066.pub2. CD006066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Murphy KW, Johnson P, Moorcraft P, Pattinson R, Russell V, Turnbull A. Birth asphyxia and the intrapartum cardiotocograph. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97:470–479. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02515.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ennis M, Vincent CA. Obstetric accidents: a review of 64 cases. BMJ. 1990;300:1365–1367. doi: 10.1136/bmj.300.6736.1365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gaffney G, Sellers S, Flavell V, Squier M, Johnson A. Case-control study of intrapartum care, cerebral palsy, and perinatal death. BMJ. 1994;308:743–750. doi: 10.1136/bmj.308.6931.743. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.K2s Medical Systems K2MS Guardian: full electronic capture of patient information during childbirth. http://www.k2ms.com/products/guardian.aspx# (accessed Dec 5, 2016).
  • 6.Keith RDF, Beckley S, Garibaldi JM, Westgate JA, Ifeachor EC, Greene KR. A multicentre comparative study of 17 experts and an intelligent computer system for managing labour using the cardiotocogram. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;102:688–700. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1995.tb11425.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Skinner JF, Harris M, Greene KR. Computerised decision support for managing labour using the cardiotocogram: 500 cases with the range of abnormality. 28th British Congress of Obstetrics and Gynaecology; Harrogate, UK; June 30–July 4, 1998.
  • 8.Keith RDF, Greene KR. Development, evaluation and validation of an intelligent decision support tool for the management of labour. In: Chang AMZ, Rogers MS, editors. Analysis of complex data in obstetrics. Bailliere Tindall; London: 1994. pp. 583–605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ugwamadu A, Steer P, Parer B. Time to optimise and enforce training in interpretation of intrapartum cardiotocograph. BJOG. 2016;123:866–869. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13846. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (UK) Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies. RCOG Press; London: 2014. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Brocklehurst P. A study of an intelligent system to support decision making in the management of labour using the cardiotocograph—the INFANT study protocol. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:10. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0780-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health . Perinatal mortality surveillance, 2004: England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health; London: 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Johnson S, Marlow N, Wolke D. Validation of a parent report measure of cognitive development in very preterm infants. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2004;46:389–397. doi: 10.1017/s0012162204000635. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Johnson S, Wolke D, Marlow N. Developmental assessment of preterm infants at 2 years: validity of parent reports. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008;50:58–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.02010.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lucas DN, Yentis SM, Kinsella SM, Holdcroft A, May AE, Wee M. Urgency of caesarean section: a new classification. J Roy Soc Med. 2000;93:346–350. doi: 10.1177/014107680009300703. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kurinczuk JJ, Barralet JH, Redshaw M, Brocklehurst P. Report to the Patient Safety Research Programme (Policy Research Programme of the Department of Health). Monitoring the incidence of neonatal encephalopathy—what next? https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/downloads/files/reports/coNsEnsus-Monitoring-NE-Report.pdf (accessed Dec 5, 2016).
  • 17.University of Leicester . The Neonatal Survey and Yorkshire Neonatal Network Report 2005. University of Leicester; Leceister: 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Westgate J, Harris M, Curnow J, Greene KR. Plymouth randomised trial of CTG only versus ST waveform plus CTG for intrapartum monitoring; 2400 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;169:1151–1160. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(93)90273-l. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Westgate J, Garibaldi JM, Greene KR. Umbilical cord blood gas analysis at delivery; a time for quality data. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994;101:1054–1063. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1994.tb13581.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Goldaber KG, Gilstrap LC, Leveno KJ, Dax JS, McIntyre DD. Pathologic fetal acidemia. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78:1103–1107. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Eskes TKAB, Jongsma HW, Houx PCW. Percentiles for gas values in human umbilical cord blood. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1983;14:341–346. doi: 10.1016/0028-2243(83)90010-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yelland LN, Salter AB, Ryan P. Relative risk estimation in randomized controlled trials: a comparison of methods for independent observations. Int J Biostat. 2011;7:5. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Johnson A. Follow-up studies: a case for a standard minimum data set. Arch Dis Child. 1997;76:F61–F63. doi: 10.1136/fn.76.1.f61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit . Disability and perinatal care: measurement of health status at two years. A report of two working groups convened by the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit and the former Oxford Regional Health Authority. National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit; Oxford: 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Pocock S. When (not) to stop a clinical trial for benefit. JAMA. 2005;294:2228–2230. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.17.2228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Berglund S, Grunewald C, Pettersson H, Cnattingus S. Severe asphyxia due to delivery-related malpractice in Sweden 1990–2005. BJOG. 2008;115:316–323. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01602.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Nunes I, Ayres-de-Campos D, Ugwumadu A. Central fetal monitoring with and without computer analysis. A randomised controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gyecol. 2017;129:83–90. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001799. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ignatov P, Atanasov B. Indirect standard cardiotocography plus fetal blood sampling versus indirect quantitative cardiotocography— a randomised comparative study in intrapartum monitoring. Akusherstvo I Ginekologia. 2012;51:3–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Freemantle N, Calvert M, Wood J, Eastaugh J, Griffin C. Composite outcomes in randomized trials: greater precision but with greater uncertainty? JAMA. 2003;289:2554–2559. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.19.2554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Pocock S, Stone G. The primary outcome fails—what next? N Engl J Med. 2016;375:861–970. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1510064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary appendix
mmc1.pdf (1.7MB, pdf)

RESOURCES