» Articles » PMID: 28341515

Computerised Interpretation of Fetal Heart Rate During Labour (INFANT): a Randomised Controlled Trial

Overview
Journal Lancet
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2017 Mar 26
PMID 28341515
Citations 49
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Cardiotocography-Based Experimental Comparison of Artificial Intelligence and Human Judgment in Assessing Fetal Asphyxia During Delivery.

Miyata K, Shibata C, Fukunishi H, Hemmi K, Kinoshita H, Hirakawa T Cureus. 2025; 17(1):e78282.

PMID: 40034878 PMC: 11875211. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.78282.


Influences on safety of intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring practices: a scoping review.

Kelly S, Lame G, Dixon-Woods M, Liberati E, Kyriacou H, Dunn H BMJ Open. 2025; 14(12):e085827.

PMID: 39806617 PMC: 11667265. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085827.


Benefits and harms associated with the use of AI-related algorithmic decision-making systems by healthcare professionals: a systematic review.

Wilhelm C, Steckelberg A, Rebitschek F Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024; 48:101145.

PMID: 39687669 PMC: 11648885. DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.101145.


Current Developments from Silicon Valley - How Artificial Intelligence is Changing Gynecology and Obstetrics.

Griewing S, Gremke N, Wagner U, Wallwiener M, Kuhn S Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2024; 84(12):1118-1125.

PMID: 39649123 PMC: 11623998. DOI: 10.1055/a-2335-6122.


Exploring the potential cost-effectiveness of a new computerised decision support tool for identifying fetal compromise during monitored term labours: an early health economic model.

Campbell H, Ratushnyak S, Georgieva A, Impey L, Rivero-Arias O Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2024; 22(1):72.

PMID: 39375735 PMC: 11460220. DOI: 10.1186/s12962-024-00580-x.


References
1.
Westgate J, Harris M, Curnow J, GREENE K . Plymouth randomized trial of cardiotocogram only versus ST waveform plus cardiotocogram for intrapartum monitoring in 2400 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 169(5):1151-60. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(93)90273-l. View

2.
Murphy K, Johnson P, Moorcraft J, Pattinson R, Russell V, Turnbull A . Birth asphyxia and the intrapartum cardiotocograph. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990; 97(6):470-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02515.x. View

3.
Gaffney G, Sellers S, Flavell V, Squier M, Johnson A . Case-control study of intrapartum care, cerebral palsy, and perinatal death. BMJ. 1994; 308(6931):743-50. PMC: 2539639. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.308.6931.743. View

4.
Ignatov P, Atanasov B . [Indirect standard cardiotocography plus fetal blood sampling versus indirect quantitative cardiotocography--a randomized comparative study in intrapartum monitoring]. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 2012; 51(5):3-10. View

5.
Goldaber K, Gilstrap 3rd L, Leveno K, Dax J, McIntire D . Pathologic fetal acidemia. Obstet Gynecol. 1991; 78(6):1103-7. View