Women’s Health Risks Associated with Orthodox Medicine - Part I - Fetal Heart Monitoring

Fetal Heart Monitoring

Electronic monitoring of fetal heart rates gets a negative report card from the research presented here in terms of its ability to improve fetal outcomes. These studies suggest that the practice is unnecessary and perhaps harmful.

One study found that fetal heart monitoring does not lead to a reduced incidence of neurological complications or perinatal mortality, while another found that premature babies monitored electronically have a worse neurological outcome than those monitored with periodic auscultation.

Electronic fetal monitoring also is associated with an increased rate of cesarean deliveries and a low Apgar score,8 which is a numerical rating of a baby’s health immediately after delivery.

This article emphasizes that, despite early results from uncontrolled trials documenting the beneficial effects of fetal monitoring, randomized trials have consistently failed to demonstrate its efficacy in improving fetal outcome. Electronic monitoring of fetal-heart rates does not result in a decreased incidence of neurological complications or perinatal mortality and is, therefore, unnecessary.

—Kaiser G, Do electronic fetal heart rate monitors improve delivery outcomes? J Fla Med Assoc 1991 May; 78(5):303-7.

This article presents evidence from randomized controlled trials indicating that fetal heart rate monitoring does not improve fetal outcome, and its use is therefore unjustified.

—Parer JT, King T, Fetal heart rate monitoring: is it salvageable? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000 Apr; 182(4):982-7.

The results of this study indicate that premature babies who undergo electronic fetal heart rate monitoring have a worse neurological outcome, compared to those monitored with periodic auscultation. In the study, 189 premature babies were randomly assigned to either electronic fetal monitoring or periodic auscultation. Neurological assessment performed at the age of 4, 8, and 18 months revealed that babies monitored electronically had lower mental- and psychomotor-development scores, compared to those monitored by periodic auscultation. In addition, babies who underwent electronic monitoring had a 2.5- fold increased incidence of cerebral palsy, compared to those followed by auscultation. Median time to delivery after the recognition of an abnormal heart rate pattern was 104 minutes in babies monitored electronically and 60 minutes in those monitored by auscultation. These data indicate that fetal heart monitoring is ineffective in improving neurological outcome in prematurely born babies, and its use may be associated with harm.

—Shy KK, et al., Effects of electronic fetal-heart-rate monitoring, as compared with periodic auscultation, on the neurologic development of premature infants. N Engl J Med 1990 Mar 1; 322(9):588-93.

The results of this study show that electronic fetal monitoring does not improve delivery outcome, while being associated with an increased rate of cesarean deliveries and low Apgar score.

—McCusker J, Harris DR, Hosmer DW Jr., Association of electronic fetal monitoring during labor with Cesarean section rate and with neonatal morbidity and mortality. Am J Public Health 1988 Sep; 78(9):1170-4.