Continuous cardiotocography in active labour has no added advantage over intermittent fetal heart rate auscultation in low risk pregnancies

Aims and Objectives: This study is to compare the maternal and perinatal outcome in cardiotocograph monitored labour with labor monitored by intermittent auscultation in respect to mode of delivery, maternal well-being, maternal comfort, accurate detection of fetal distress by detecting cord blood acidosis, neonatal ICU admissions and perinatal death in low obstetric risk group mothers.Materials and Methods: This was a randomised controlled prospective study at a tertiary medical College, selecting 100 cases (with CTG monitoring) and 100 controls (with FHS auscultation only) who were followed up in respect of the above parameters and statistically analysed.Results: The study showed there is 1.5 times higher rate of C-section in the CTG group and 1.33 times higher risk of caesarean section for abnormal FHR pattern in the CTG group. In our study, there is 1.33 times higher instrumental delivery rate in CTG group than FHS auscultation group. There was 6.39 times more complaints of discomfort in ctg monitored cases, p value-<0> Discussion: The study shows that in low obstetric risk patients, there is no significant difference in most of the parameters though our study showed an increased risk of caesarean sections and instrumental vaginal deliveries. It is undoubted that ctg has better detection ability for fetal heart rate abnormality. The neonatal outcome i.e the nursery admission rates and the perinatal mortality rates were also not different in both the groups.Conclusion: In a country like ours or other developing countries, where resources are poor, and ctg requiring trained personnel, one to one care, ctg has not been cost effective in comparison to intermittent auscultation rather IA has sometimes outweighed ctg in terms of fetal heart rate monitoring efficiently.