Objectives
To study the methodology and results of studies assessing the relationship between fetal heart rate and specified neonatal outcomes including, heart rate, infection, necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, and seizure.

Methods
Embase, Medline ALL, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL were searched from inception to October 5, 2023.

Results
Forty-two studies were included, encompassing 57,232 cases that underwent fetal monitoring and were evaluated for neonatal outcome. Heterogeneity was observed in the timing and duration of fetal heart rate assessment, classification guidelines used, number of assessors, and definition and timing of neonatal outcome assessment. Nonreassuring fetal heart rate was linked to lower neonatal heart rate variability. A significant increase in abnormal fetal heart rate patterns were reported in neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, but the predictive ability was found to be limited. Conflicting results were reported regarding sepsis, seizure and intraventricular hemorrhage. No association was found between necrotizing enterocolitis rate and fetal heart rate.

Conclusions
There is great heterogeneity in the methodology used in studies evaluating the association between fetal heart rate and aforementioned neonatal outcomes. Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy was associated with increased abnormal fetal heart rate patterns, although the predictive ability was low. Further research on developing and evaluating an automated early warning system that integrates computerized cardiotocography with a perinatal health parameter database to provide objective alerts for patients at-risk is recommended.
@en

Introduction: In clinical practice, fetal heart rate monitoring is performed intermittently using Doppler ultrasound, typically for 30 minutes. In case of a non-reassuring heart rate pattern, monitoring is usually prolonged. Noninvasive fetal electrocardiography may be more suitable for prolonged monitoring due to improved patient comfort and signal quality. This study evaluates the performance and patient experience of four noninvasive electrocardiography devices to assess candidate devices for prolonged noninvasive fetal heart rate monitoring. Material and methods: Non-critically sick women with a singleton pregnancy from 24 weeks of gestation were eligible for inclusion. Fetal heart rate monitoring was performed during standard care with a Doppler ultrasound device (Philips Avalon-FM30) alone or with this Doppler ultrasound device simultaneously with one of four noninvasive electrocardiography devices (Nemo Fetal Monitoring System, Philips Avalon-Beltless, Demcon Dipha-16 and Dräger Infinity-M300). Performance was evaluated by: success rate, positive percent agreement, bias, 95% limits of agreement, regression line, root mean square error and visual agreement using FIGO guidelines. Patient experience was captured using a self-made questionnaire. Results: A total of 10 women were included per device. For fetal heart rate, Nemo performed best (success rate: 99.4%, positive percent agreement: 94.2%, root mean square error 5.1 BPM, bias: 0.5 BPM, 95% limits of agreement: −9.7 – 10.7 BPM, regression line: y = −0.1x + 11.1) and the cardiotocography tracings obtained simultaneously by Nemo and Avalon-FM30 received the same FIGO classification. Comparable results were found with the Avalon-Beltless from 36 weeks of gestation, whereas the Dipha-16 and Infinity-M300 performed significantly worse. The Avalon-Beltless, Nemo and Infinity-M300 closely matched the performance of the Avalon-FM30 for maternal heart rate, whereas the performance of the Dipha-16 deviated more. Patient experience scores were higher for the noninvasive electrocardiography devices. Conclusions: Both Nemo and Avalon-Beltless are suitable devices for (prolonged) noninvasive fetal heart rate monitoring, taking their intended use into account. But outside its intended use limit of 36 weeks’ gestation, the Avalon-Beltless performs less well, comparable to the Dipha-16 and Infinity-M300, making them currently unsuitable for (prolonged) noninvasive fetal heart rate monitoring. Noninvasive electrocardiography devices appear to be preferred due to greater comfort and mobility.

@en