Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-2708-4947
Characteristics and Categories of Fetal Heart Rate Tracings and Adverse Neonatal Outcomes at Term
Authors

Abstract
Objective
This study aimed to compare characteristics and categories of fetal heart rate tracings (FHRT) among term (≥37.0 weeks) singletons without versus with composite adverse neonatal outcomes (CANO).
Study Design
For 15 consecutive months, retrospectively FHRT of all deliveries were characterized by obstetricians, who were blinded to maternal characteristics, intrapartum course, and neonatal outcomes. The inclusion criteria were nonanomalous singletons at term, who labored and had at least 20 minutes of FHRT. CANO included any of the following: Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes, mechanical ventilation for > 6 hours, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, seizure, sepsis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing, enterocolitis, birth injury, meconium aspiration syndrome, or neonatal death. Positive likelihood ratios (PLR), with pre- and posttest probabilities, were calculated.
Results
Of the 5,160 deliveries during the study period, 3,166 (61.4%) met inclusion criteria, and 2,765 (87.3%) had between 20 and 120 minutes of FHRT reviewed. CANO occurred in 49 (1.5%) of the newborns. Three FHRT characteristics differed significantly among those without and with CANO—severe decelerations, tachycardia with any decelerations, or with severe decelerations. The PLR ranged from 1.60 to 5.96 for CANO, with posttest probabilities of CANO from 2.4 to 8.3%. Persistent category I within 20 to 120 minutes of delivery occurred with similar frequency among those without versus with CANO (11.5 vs. 8.2%; p = 0.472; PLR: 0.71). Presence of category II anytime occurred similarly for those without and with CANO (88.5 vs. 89.8%; p = 0.785; PLR: 1.01); category III, at any time, also occurred similarly in the two groups (0.8 vs. 2.0%; p = 0.319; PLR: 2.65).
Conclusion
In our cohorts of term singletons, neither the characteristics nor the category of FHRT provided clinically meaningful discriminative capacity between newborns with versus without CANO.
Key Points
-
Category I FHRT in approximately 10% of parturients.
-
At term, CANO in 1.5%.
-
Characteristics of FHRT: poor diagnostic tests for CANO.
-
Categories I, II, and III: similar frequencies with and without CANO.
Keywords
Apgar score - bradycardia - category I, II, or III - composite adverse neonatal outcomes - decelerations—late, variable, prolonged - diagnostic tests - hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy - likelihood ratio - tachycardiaNote
This study was presented as a Poster at the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine Annual Pregnancy Meeting in Denver, Colorado from January 30, 2025, to February 1, 2025.
Publication History
Received: 12 August 2025
Accepted: 23 September 2025
Accepted Manuscript online:
24 September 2025
Article published online:
08 October 2025
© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
-
References
- 1 Ananth CV, Chauhan SP, Chen HY, D'Alton ME, Vintzileos AM. Electronic fetal monitoring in the United States: temporal trends and adverse perinatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121 (05) 927-933
- 2 Chen HY, Chauhan SP, Ananth CV, Vintzileos AM, Abuhamad AZ. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring and its relationship to neonatal and infant mortality in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204 (06) 491.e1-491.e10
- 3 Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118 (01) 29-38
- 4 Nelson KB, Dambrosia JM, Ting TY, Grether JK. Uncertain value of electronic fetal monitoring in predicting cerebral palsy. N Engl J Med 1996; 334 (10) 613-618
- 5 Alfirevic Z, Devane D, Gyte GM, Cuthbert A. Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 2 (02) CD006066
- 6 Qureshey EJ, Mendez-Figueroa H, Wiley RL, Bhalwal AB, Chauhan SP. Cesarean delivery at term for non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing: risk factors and predictability. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2022; 35 (25) 6714-6720
- 7 Chauhan SP, Beydoun H, Hammad IA. et al. Indications for caesarean sections at ≥34 weeks among nulliparous women and differential composite maternal and neonatal morbidity. BJOG 2014; 121 (11) 1395-1402
- 8 Parer JT, Ikeda T. A framework for standardized management of intrapartum fetal heart rate patterns. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197 (01) 26.e1-26.e6
- 9 Macones GA, Hankins GD, Spong CY, Hauth J, Moore T. The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112 (03) 661-666
- 10 Chauhan SP, Klauser CK, Woodring TC, Sanderson M, Magann EF, Morrison JC. Intrapartum nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing and prediction of adverse outcomes: interobserver variability. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199 (06) 623.e1-623.e5
- 11 ACOG Practice Bulletin No. ACOG practice bulletin no. 106: intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (01) 192-202
- 12 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 116: management of intrapartum fetal heart rate tracings. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 (05) 1232-1240
- 13 Zullo F, Di Mascio D, Raghuraman N. et al. Three-tiered fetal heart rate interpretation system and adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2023; 229 (04) 377-387
- 14 Jackson M, Holmgren CM, Esplin MS, Henry E, Varner MW. Frequency of fetal heart rate categories and short-term neonatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118 (04) 803-808
- 15 Cahill AG, Tuuli MG, Stout MJ, López JD, Macones GA. A prospective cohort study of fetal heart rate monitoring: deceleration area is predictive of fetal acidemia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218 (05) 523.e1-523.e12
- 16 Cagino KA, Wiley RL, Roberts AW, Zullo F, Mendez-Figueroa H, Chauhan SP. Proportion of time in category II fetal heart rate tracing and adverse outcomes. Am J Perinatol 2025
- 17 R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2023. . Accessed at: https://www.R-project.org/
- 18 Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1994; 271 (09) 703-707
- 19 von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007; 370 (9596) 1453-1457
- 20 Executive summary: Neonatal encephalopathy and neurologic outcome, second edition. Report of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Task Force on Neonatal Encephalopathy. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123: 896-901
- 21 Bruno AM, López JD, Stout MJ, Tuuli MG, Macones GA, Cahill AG. Acidemia can occur despite category I tracing. Am J Perinatol 2020; 37 (07) 762-768
- 22 ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice. ACOG Committee opinion no. 348, November 2006: umbilical cord blood gas and acid-base analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108 (05) 1319-1322
- 23 Coletta J, Murphy E, Rubeo Z, Gyamfi-Bannerman C. The 5-tier system of assessing fetal heart rate tracings is superior to the 3-tier system in identifying fetal acidemia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206 (03) 226.e1-226.e5
- 24 Blackwell SC, Grobman WA, Antoniewicz L, Hutchinson M, Gyamfi Bannerman C. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the NICHD 3-tier fetal heart rate interpretation system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205 (04) 378.e1-378.e5
- 25 Grimes DA, Peipert JF. Electronic fetal monitoring as a public health screening program: the arithmetic of failure. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 (06) 1397-1400