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)

Sven Schiermeier; Constantin Sylvius von Kaisenberg; Sven Kehl; Frank Reister; Beatrice Mosimann; Philipp Reif; Werner Harlfinger; Klaus König; Christiane Schwarz; Elke Matern; Maritta Kühnert; Ralf Schmitz; Markus Hoopmann; Andrea Ramsell; Barbara Stocker Kalberer; Petra Graf Heule; Silke Heinzl; Beate Kayer; Patricia Gruber; Horst Steiner; Leonard Schaeffer

doi:10.1055/a-2096-1182

Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, Table of Contents

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

Authors

Sven Schiermeier‡

¹Lehrstuhl für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe der Universität Witten/Herdecke, Marien-Hospital Witten, Witten, Germany
Constantin Sylvius von Kaisenberg‡

²Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical School of Hannover (MHH), Hannover, Germany
Sven Kehl

³Gynecology & Obstetrics, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
Frank Reister

⁴Sektion Geburtshilfe, Univ.-Frauenklinik, Univ.-Klinikum Ulm, Ulm, Germany
Beatrice Mosimann

⁵University Womenʼs Hospital, Department of Obstetrics, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland
Philipp Reif

⁶Obstetrics & Gynecology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
Werner Harlfinger

⁷Frauenarztpraxis, Mainz, Germany
Klaus König

⁸Berufsverband der Frauenärzte, Eschborn, Germany
Christiane Schwarz

⁹Institute of Health Sciences, Department of Midwifery Science, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
Elke Matern

¹⁰Medical Department, Martin Luther University Halle Wittenberg, Halle, Germany
Maritta Kühnert

¹¹Geburtshilfe, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany
Ralf Schmitz

¹²Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
Markus Hoopmann

¹³Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
Andrea Ramsell

¹⁴Deutscher Hebammenverband e. V., Karlsruhe, Germany
Barbara Stocker Kalberer

¹⁵Schweizerischer Hebammenverband, Olten, Switzerland
Petra Graf Heule

¹⁵Schweizerischer Hebammenverband, Olten, Switzerland
Silke Heinzl

¹⁶Österreichisches Hebammengremium, Wien, Austria
Beate Kayer

¹⁶Österreichisches Hebammengremium, Wien, Austria
Patricia Gruber

¹⁴Deutscher Hebammenverband e. V., Karlsruhe, Germany
Horst Steiner

¹⁷Universitätsklinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Landeskrankenhaus Salzburg, Paracelsus, Salzburg, Austria
Leonard Schaeffer

¹⁸Kantonsspital Baden AG, Baden, Switzerland

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

Full Text

References

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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/
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
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
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
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
16 Staisch KJ, Westlake JR, Bashore RA. Blind oxytocin challenge test and perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 138: 399-403
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
24 Alfirevic Z, Stampalija T, Medley N. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (2015) CD001450
25 Impey L, Reynolds M, MacQuillan K. et al. Admission cardiotocography: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003; 361: 465-470
26 Madaan M, Trivedi SS. Intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring vs. intermittent auscultation in postcesarean pregnancies. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006; 94: 123-125
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 discussion 1460–1462
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
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