Continuous objective recording of fetal heart rate and fetal movements could reliably identify fetal compromise, which could reduce stillbirth rates by facilitating timely management

Gestational diabetes in the United States: temporal changes in prevalence rates between 1979 and 2010

“…Despite reductions in macrosomia, however, the increased rate of stillbirth in the setting of GDM highlights the risk involved with these pregnancies, and suggests that improving care may represent an opportunity to prevent adverse fetal outcomes. Furthermore, it is important to note that increased risk was noted even in the setting of dramatically increased uptake of electronic fetal monitoring over the study period, which is associated with decreased rates of adverse outcomes, including stillbirth and neonatal mortality …”

Women's experiences of continuous fetal monitoring – a mixed‐methods systematic review

“…Hence, confirmatory testing is often required, resulting in additional testing requiring increased resources . Additionally, current fetal monitoring methods do not provide a longitudinal and objective view of fetal well‐being and therefore may not be able to detect intermittent signs of fetal compromise .…”

“…The majority of respondents would use such a device in high‐risk pregnancies, such as in cases of fetal growth restriction, reduced fetal movements, or previous stillbirth . Hence, CFM is proposed as an alternative method of fetal monitoring to current intermittent fetal monitoring for high‐risk pregnancies performed in healthcare settings . However, the questionnaire study also found that 64.3% of clinicians expressed concern that, if implemented into routine clinical care, CFM could increase levels of maternal anxiety .…”

A mixed‐methods evaluation of continuous electronic fetal monitoring for an extended period

“…One exception may be computerized analysis of the FHR trace; a meta‐analysis of two trials including 469 participants found a significantly reduced relative risk of perinatal mortality (0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04‐0.88) compared with manual interpretation of the FHR trace . A further criticism of current fetal monitoring methods is that they do not provide a longitudinal or objective view of fetal wellbeing and may not be sufficiently sensitive to detect signs of fetal compromise . Consequently, there has been increased interest in application of computerized analysis of the cardiotocograph (CTG) for extended periods.…”