Key result
NST interpreted with one or zero accelerations shows no difference in perinatal mortality versus standard criteria.
Why the study?
Does interpreting NSTs with one or no accelerations as 'fetal well-being preserved' yield non-inferior perinatal outcomes compared to the standard reactive criterion in high-risk pregnant patients?
Population
699 high-risk pregnant patients with ≥ 34 weeks' gestation (1,206 NSTs) in Panama
Comparison
Usual reactive/non-reactive criterion vs NST reported as fetal well-being preserved (≤ 1 acceleration with moderate variability)
Design
Multicenter, non-randomized, observational, comparative non-inferiority study
Authors
Loading...
Supports alternative NST interpretations in high-risk pregnancies; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
Observational (n=699)
non-randomized
Yes
Does interpreting NSTs with one or no accelerations as 'fetal well-being preserved' yield non-inferior perinatal outcomes compared to the standard reactive criterion in high-risk pregnant patients?
Interpreting NSTs with normal variability and ≤1 acceleration as reassuring yields similar perinatal outcomes to the standard reactive criterion requiring ≥2 accelerations.
Gracia et al. (2026) conducted an observational in High-risk pregnancy (n=699). NST interpreted as fetal well-being preserved (≤ 1 acceleration) vs. NST interpreted as reactive (≥ 2 accelerations) was evaluated on Perinatal mortality. Interpreting the non-stress test as fetal well-being preserved (≤ 1 acceleration) yielded no significant differences in perinatal mortality compared to the standard reactive criterion (≥ 2 accelerations).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: