Download PDF
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2023; 83(08): 996-1016
DOI: 10.1055/a-2096-1182
GebFra Science
Guideline/Leitlinie

Fetal Assessment in Pregnancy (Indication and Methodology for Fetal Monitoring in a Low-risk Population). Guideline of the DGGG, DEGUM, OEGGG and SGGG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/089, February 2023)

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Sven Schiermeier‡
1   Lehrstuhl für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe der Universität Witten/Herdecke, Marien-Hospital Witten, Witten, Germany
,
Constantin Sylvius von Kaisenberg‡
2   Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical School of Hannover (MHH), Hannover, Germany
,
Sven Kehl
3   Gynecology & Obstetrics, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
,
Frank Reister
4   Sektion Geburtshilfe, Univ.-Frauenklinik, Univ.-Klinikum Ulm, Ulm, Germany
,
Beatrice Mosimann
5   University Womenʼs Hospital, Department of Obstetrics, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland
,
Philipp Reif
6   Obstetrics & Gynecology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
,
Werner Harlfinger
7   Frauenarztpraxis, Mainz, Germany
,
Klaus König
8   Berufsverband der Frauenärzte, Eschborn, Germany
,
Christiane Schwarz
9   Institute of Health Sciences, Department of Midwifery Science, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
,
Elke Matern
10   Medical Department, Martin Luther University Halle Wittenberg, Halle, Germany
,
Maritta Kühnert
11   Geburtshilfe, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany
,
Ralf Schmitz
12   Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
,
Markus Hoopmann
13   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
,
Andrea Ramsell
14   Deutscher Hebammenverband e. V., Karlsruhe, Germany
,
Barbara Stocker Kalberer
15   Schweizerischer Hebammenverband, Olten, Switzerland
,
Petra Graf Heule
15   Schweizerischer Hebammenverband, Olten, Switzerland
,
Silke Heinzl
16   Österreichisches Hebammengremium, Wien, Austria
,
Beate Kayer
16   Österreichisches Hebammengremium, Wien, Austria
,
Patricia Gruber
14   Deutscher Hebammenverband e. V., Karlsruhe, Germany
,
Horst Steiner
17   Universitätsklinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Landeskrankenhaus Salzburg, Paracelsus, Salzburg, Austria
,
Leonard Schaeffer
18   Kantonsspital Baden AG, Baden, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this guideline was to find evidence on whether carrying out Doppler examinations and CTGs in low-risk cohorts of pregnant women improves outcomes.

Methods First, a systematic search for guidelines was carried out. Identified guidelines were evaluated using the DELPHI instrument of the AWMF. Three guidelines were found to be suitable to evaluate CTG. Two DEGUM best practice guidelines were judged suitable to describe the methods. All studies on this issue were additionally analyzed using 8 PICO questions. A structured consensus of the participating professional societies was achieved using a nominal group process and a structured consensus conference moderated by an independent moderator.

Recommendations No antepartum Doppler sonography examinations should be carried out in low-risk cohorts in the context of antenatal care. No antepartum CTG should be carried out in low-risk cohorts.

Note The guideline will be published simultaneously in the official journals of both professional societies (i.e., Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde for the DGGG and Ultraschall in der Medizin/European Journal of Ultrasound for the DEGUM).

Key words

guideline - fetal assessment - prenatal care - check-up - pregnancy - Doppler sonography - ultrasound - CTG - cardiotocography


Publication History

Received: 13 May 2023

Accepted: 16 May 2023

Article published online:
15 August 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References/Literatur

  • 1 University of California (UCSF). Low-Risk Pregnancies. Accessed June 16, 2023 at: https://obgyn.ucsf.edu/maternal-fetal-medicine/low-risk-pregnancies
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 National Institute for Health and Care-Excellence (NICE). Antenatal Care. NICE guideline [NG 201]. NICE NG201 2021 updated 08/2021. Version 1. Accessed June 16, 2023 at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng201/resources/antenatal-care-pdf-66143709695941
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Von Kaisenberg C, Chaoui R, Häusler M. et al.. Qualitätsanforderungen an die weiterführende differenzierte Ultraschalluntersuchung in der pränatalen Diagnostik (DEGUM-Stufen II und III) im Zeitraum 11–13 + 6 Schwangerschaftswochen [Quality Requirements for the early Fetal Ultrasound Assessment at 11–13 + 6 Weeks of Gestation (DEGUM Levels II and III)]. Ultraschall Med 2016; 37: 297-302 DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-105514.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kozlowski P, Burkhardt T, Gembruch U. et al. Empfehlungen der DEGUM, der ÖGUM, der SGUM und der FMF Deutschland zum Einsatz von Ersttrimester-Screening, früher Fehlbildungsdiagnostik, Screening an zellfreier DNA (NIPT) und diagnostischen Punktionen [DEGUM, ÖGUM, SGUM and FMF Germany Recommendations for the Implementation of First-Trimester Screening, Detailed Ultrasound, Cell-Free DNA Screening and Diagnostic Procedures]. Ultraschall Med 2019; 40: 176-193 DOI: 10.1055/a-0631-8898.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kähler C, Schramm T, Bald R. et al. Aktualisierte Qualitätsanforderungen an die Ultraschall-Screeninguntersuchung in der pränatalen Basisdiagnostik (= DEGUM-Stufe I) im Zeitraum 18 + 0 bis 21 + 6 Schwangerschaftswochen [Updated DEGUM Quality Requirements for the Basic Prenatal Screening Ultrasound Examination (DEGUM Level I) between 18 + 0 and 21 + 6 weeks of gestation]. Ultraschall Med 2020; 41: 499-503 DOI: 10.1055/a-1018-1752.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Merz E, Eichhorn K-H, von Kaisenberg C. et al. Aktualisierte Qualitätsanforderungen an die weiterführende differenzierte Ultraschalluntersuchung in der pränatalen Diagnostik (= DEGUM-Stufe II) im Zeitraum von 18 + 0 bis 21 + 6 Schwangerschaftswochen [Updated quality requirements regarding secondary differentiated ultrasound examination in prenatal diagnostics (= DEGUM level II) in the period from 18 + 0 to 21 + 6 weeks of gestation]. Ultraschall Med 2012; 33: 593-596 DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1325500.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chaoui R, Heling K, Mielke G. et al. Qualitätsanforderungen der DEGUM zur Durchführung der fetalen Echokardiografie [Quality standards of the DEGUM for performance of fetal echocardiography]. Ultraschall Med 2008; 29: 197-200 DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1027302.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Snijders RJM, Nicolaides KH. Chapter 1, Fetal abnormalities. In: Nicolaides KH. ed. Ultrasound Markers For Fetal Chromosomal Defects. Carnforth, Lancs, UK: The Parthenon Publishing Group; 1996: 1-7
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Faber R, Heling K-S, Steiner H. et al. Dopplersonografie in der Schwangerschaft – Qualitätsanforderungen der DEGUM und klinischer Einsatz (Teil 1) [Doppler Sonography during Pregnancy – DEGUM Quality Standards and Clinical Applications]. Ultraschall Med 2019; 40: 319-325 DOI: 10.1055/a-0800-8596.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Faber R, Heling K-S, Steiner H. et al. Dopplersonografie in der Schwangerschaft – Qualitätsanforderungen der DEGUM und klinischer Einsatz (Teil 2) [Doppler ultrasound in pregnancy – quality requirements of DEGUM and clinical application (part 2)]. Ultraschall Med 2021; 42: 541-550 DOI: 10.1055/a-1452-9898.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 G-BA. Richtlinien des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die ärztliche Betreuung während der Schwangerschaft und nach der Entbindung („Mutterschafts-Richtlinien“) in der Fassung vom 10. Dezember 1985 (veröffentlicht im Bundesanzeiger Nr. 60 a vom 27. März 1986) zuletzt geändert am 16. September 2021 veröffentlicht im Bundesanzeiger AT 26.11.2021 B4 in Kraft getreten am 1. Januar 2022. Accessed June 16, 2023 at:. https://www.g-ba.de/richtlinien/19/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 National Institute for Health and Care-Excellence (NICE). Intrapartum Care. Care of healthy woman and their babies during childbirth. Clinical guideline [CG 190]. NICE CG190 2014 updated 02/2017. Version 2. Accessed June 16, 2023 at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg190/evidence/full-guideline-pdf-248734770
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ayres-de-Campos D, Spong CY, Chandraharan E. FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: Cardiotocography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015; 131: 13-24 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.06.020.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Devoe LD. Antenatal fetal assessment: contraction stress test, nonstress test, vibroacoustic stimulation, amniotic fluid volume, biophysical profile, and modified biophysical profile–an overview. Semin Perinatol 2008; 32: 247-252 DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2008.04.005.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Figueras F, Martínez JM, Puerto B. et al. Contraction stress test versus ductus venosus Doppler evaluation for the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome in growth-restricted fetuses with non-reassuring non-stress test. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21: 250-255 DOI: 10.1002/uog.60.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Staisch KJ, Westlake JR, Bashore RA. Blind oxytocin challenge test and perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 138: 399-403 DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(80)90136-2.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Dudwiesus H, Merz E. Wie sicher ist Ultraschall in der Pränatalmedizin? Fakten und Widersprüche. Teil 1 – Ultraschallinduzierte Bioeffekte [How Safe Is the Use of Ultrasound in Prenatal Medicine? Facts and Contradictions. Part 1 – Ultrasound-Induced Bioeffects]. Ultraschall Med 2020; 41: 476-498 DOI: 10.1055/a-1246-3004.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Abou-Dakn M, Schäfers R, Peterwerth N. et al. Vaginale Geburt am Termin. Leitlinie der DGGG (S3-Level, AWMF Register Nr. 015/083, Dezember 2020). Accessed June 16, 2023 at: https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/015-083l_S3_Vaginale-Geburt-am-Termin_2021-03.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Giles W, Bisits A, OʼCallaghan S. et al. The Doppler assessment in multiple pregnancy randomised controlled trial of ultrasound biometry versus umbilical artery Doppler ultrasound and biometry in twin pregnancy. BJOG 2003; 110: 593-597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lees CC, Marlow N, van Wassenaer-Leemhuis A. et al. 2 year neurodevelopmental and intermediate perinatal outcomes in infants with very preterm fetal growth restriction (TRUFFLE): a randomised trial. Lancet 2015; 385: 2162-2172 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62049-3.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Newnham JP, Doherty DA, Kendall GE. et al. Effects of repeated prenatal ultrasound examinations on childhood outcome up to 8 years of age: follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 364: 2038-2044 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17516-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Subtil D, Goeusse P, Houfflin-Debarge V. et al. Randomised comparison of uterine artery Doppler and aspirin (100 mg) with placebo in nulliparous women: the Essai Régional Aspirine Mère-Enfant study (Part 2). BJOG 2003; 110: 485-491 DOI: 10.1046/j.1471-0528.2003.t01-1-02097.x.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Williams KP, Farquharson DF, Bebbington M. et al. Screening for fetal well-being in a high-risk pregnant population comparing the nonstress test with umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 1366-1371 DOI: 10.1067/mob.2003.305.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Alfirevic Z, Stampalija T, Medley N. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (2015) CD001450 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001450.pub4.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Impey L, Reynolds M, MacQuillan K. et al. Admission cardiotocography: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003; 361: 465-470 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12464-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Madaan M, Trivedi SS. Intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring vs. intermittent auscultation in postcesarean pregnancies. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006; 94: 123-125 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.03.026.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mires G, Williams F, Howie P. Randomised controlled trial of cardiotocography versus Doppler auscultation of fetal heart at admission in labour in low risk obstetric population. BMJ 2001; 322: 1457-1460 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.322.7300.1457. discussion 1460–1462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Siristatidis C, Kassanos D, Salamalekis G. et al. Cardiotocography alone versus cardiotocography plus Doppler evaluation of the fetal middle cerebral and umbilical artery for intrapartum fetal monitoring: a Greek prospective controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 25: 1183-1187 DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2011.622000.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Smith V, Begley C, Newell J. et al. Admission cardiotocography versus intermittent auscultation of the fetal heart in low-risk pregnancy during evaluation for possible labour admission – a multicentre randomised trial: the ADCAR trial. BJOG 2019; 126: 114-121 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.15448.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar