Key result
This study protocol describes a trial investigating the effect of continuous antepartum eCTG monitoring versus intermittent CTG on perinatal and maternal outcomes; no results are available.
Why the study?
Continuous fetal monitoring is not recommended with conventional CTG due to potential ultrasound-induced temperature rise, but newly developed continuous non-invasive electrophysiological CTG may safely enable 24/7 monitoring.
Does continuous antepartum eCTG monitoring improve perinatal and maternal outcomes in hospitalized high-risk pregnancies compared to conventional intermittent CTG monitoring?
RCT (n=1,911)
Random sampling of prospective cohort
No
Does continuous antepartum eCTG monitoring improve perinatal and maternal outcomes in hospitalized high-risk pregnancies compared to conventional intermittent CTG monitoring?
This study protocol outlines a cohort intervention random sampling study to evaluate whether continuous non-invasive electrophysiological fetal monitoring improves perinatal outcomes in high-risk pregnancies compared to standard intermittent CTG.
Continuous eCTG feasibility in high-risk pregnancies remains untested; this protocol leaves open whether 24/7 monitoring improves outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: Women with high-risk pregnancies (eg, pre-eclampsia, imminent preterm birth) are often hospitalised due to the need for foetal and maternal monitoring. They are monitored for 30-45 min up to three times a day with conventional cardiotocography (CTG). In the meantime, they reside at the hospital, but the foetal status is not monitored. Continuous foetal monitoring is currently not recommended using CTG, due to the potential temperature rise from consistent exposure to ultrasound waves. For safe 24/7 monitoring, newly developed devices using non-invasive electrophysiological cardiotocography (eCTG) instead of conventional CTG offer a promising alternative. Previous research into eCTG has shown favourable results in monitoring foetal heart rate throughout both pregnancy and labour. This study aims to investigate the effect of implementing continuous antepartum eCTG monitoring in hospitalised high-risk pregnancies on perinatal and maternal outcome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this single centre prospective cohort intervention random sampling study, eligible women will be included on the Obstetric High Care of Máxima MC Veldhoven, the Netherlands. In total, 511 pregnant women with a singleton pregnancy between 23+0 and 32+0 weeks of gestation requiring hospitalisation will be recruited. Eligible women will be prospectively included in the cohort receiving standard treatment: intermittent CTG monitoring. From these women, a random sample of the prospective cohort will be offered a new monitoring method: 24/7 eCTG monitoring. For the eCTG monitoring, a wireless abdominal electrode patch, the Nemo Foetal Monitoring System will be used. Additional data from a historical cohort (2014-2019) of 1400 women receiving standard treatment will be included. Perinatal and maternal outcome, along with satisfaction levels of both patient and caregivers, will be compared between groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is registered on 18 October 2022 to the Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (NL82869.015.22) via https://www.toetsingonline.nl/to/ccmo_monitor.nsf/conceptabr?OpenForm and approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Máxima MC (W22.070) on 7 November 2023. Results of the study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06151613.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Klerk et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in High-risk pregnancies (n=1,911). Continuous non-invasive electrophysiological cardiotocography (eCTG) vs. Intermittent CTG monitoring was evaluated on Perinatal and maternal outcome, along with satisfaction levels of both patient and caregivers. This study protocol describes a trial investigating the effect of continuous antepartum eCTG monitoring versus intermittent CTG on perinatal and maternal outcomes; no results are available.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: