Electronic fetal monitoring increases the risk of women having a caesarean section, which is not a benign operation, he writes.
They acknowledge that
electronic fetal monitoring increases the rate of instrumental delivery (such as use of forceps) and caesarean section, but argue that increased intervention «may not be entirely undesirable, given that appropriately timed intervention is likely to avoid neonatal hypoxia, seizures, and perinatal death.»
Not exact matches
In the United States, Canada, and recently England, major reviews of the evidence have concluded that
electronic fetal monitoring should be reserved for high risk pregnancies.18 Use of
electronic fetal monitoring has
increased worldwide, however, in both low and high risk groups.
There is some evidence that the use of continuous
electronic fetal monitoring may lead to
increased false positives for
fetal hypoxemia and to resulting caesarean sections.21, 22
The biggest problem being cesarean surgery and operative vaginal births
increase when the
electronic fetal monitor is used, but the babies don't do any better than babies who had their heart rate measured every 15 minutes with a stethoscope.
This dramatic
increase was a result of several changes in the practice environment, including the introduction of
electronic fetal monitoring and a decrease in operative vaginal deliveries and attempts at vaginal breech deliveries (8 — 11).
They blame this
increase on the introduction of
electronic fetal monitoring, and the decrease in breech births and forceps births.
Given that
electronic fetal monitoring does not prevent perinatal deaths, «the excess of subsequent deaths caused by the
increased risk of caesarean section is a major concern.»