Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31842798›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2019

Unrecognized maternal heart rate artefact in cases of perinatal mortality reported to the United States Food and Drug Administration from 2009 to 2019: a critical patient safety issue.

Daniel J Kiely, Lawrence W Oppenheimer, James C Dornan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Safety of Internal Electronic Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring During Labor.Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.) · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Daniel J KielyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hôpital de Thetford Mines, 1717 rue Notre Dame Est, Thetford Mines, Québec, G6G 2V4, Canada. danieljameskiely@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5661-7825
Lawrence W OppenheimerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, The Ottawa Hospital, 501 Smyth Road, Box 804, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada.
James C DornanDepartment of Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Queens University Belfast (rtrd) and Chair Health and Life Sciences, Ulster University, York Street, Belfast, County Antrim, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT15 1ED.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMaternal heart rate artefact is a signal processing error whereby the fetal heart rate is masked by the maternal pulse, potentially leading to danger by failure to recognize an abnormal fetal heart rate or a pre-existing fetal death. Maternal heart rate artefact may be exacerbated by autocorrelation algorithms in modern fetal monitors due to smooth transitions between maternal and fetal heart rates rather than breaks in the tracing. In response, manufacturers of cardiotocography monitors recommend verifying fetal life prior to monitoring and have developed safeguards including signal ambiguity detection technologies to simultaneously and continuously monitor the maternal and fetal heart rates. However, these safeguards are not emphasized in current cardiotocography clinical practice guidelines, potentially leading to a patient safety gap.

methodsThe United States Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database was reviewed for records with event type "Death" for the time period March 31, 2009 to March 31, 2019, in combination with search terms selected to capture all cases reported involving cardiotocography devices. Records were reviewed to determine whether maternal heart rate artefact was probable and/or whether the report contained a recommendation from the device manufacturer regarding maternal heart rate artefact.

resultsForty-seven cases of perinatal mortality were identified with probable maternal heart rate artefact including 14 with antepartum fetal death prior to initiation of cardiotocography, 14 with intrapartum fetal death or neonatal death after initiation of cardiotocography, and 19 where the temporal relationship between initiation of cardiotocography and death cannot be definitively established from the report. In 29 cases, there was a recommendation from the manufacturer regarding diagnosis and/or management of maternal heart rate artefact.

conclusionsThis case series indicates a recurring problem with undetected maternal heart rate artefact leading to perinatal mortality and, in cases of pre-existing fetal death, healthcare provider confusion. In response, manufacturers frequently recommend safeguards which are found in their device's instructions for use but not in major intrapartum cardiotocography guidelines. Cardiotocography guidelines should be updated to include the latest safeguards against the risks of maternal heart rate artefact. An additional file summarizing key points for clinicians is included.

Indexed as

ArtifactsPerinatal MortalityCardiotocographyFemaleHeart Rate, FetalHumansInfant, NewbornPerinatal DeathPregnancySignal Processing, Computer-AssistedUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationBrain hypoxia-ischemiaCardiotocographyFetal distressFetal heart rateFetal monitoringObstetricsPerinatal deathPregnancyProduct recalls and withdrawalsStillbirth

Identifiers

PMID31842798
PMCPMC6915916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.