Publications
Digital foetal scalp stimulation versus foetal blood sampling to assess foetal well-being in labour: A multicentre randomised controlled trial
Our randomised controlled trial was unable to establish whether digital foetal scalp stimulation (dFSS) is better than foetal blood sampling in reducing the rate of caesarean section in labour, without adversely affecting perinatal outcomes. Clinician preference for dFSS was apparent, though robust evidence is lacking.
- Authors
Keelin O'Donoghue
- Year
- 2025
- Journal Name
- British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (BJOG)
- Category
- Journal Article
- Full Citation
Yambasu S, Boland F, O'Donoghue K, Curran C, Shahabuddin Y, Cotter A, Gaffney G, Devane D, Molloy EJ, Murphy DJ. Digital foetal scalp stimulation versus foetal blood sampling to assess foetal well-being in labour: A multicentre randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (BJOG). 2025;132(5):557-564. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.18068.
- Link to Publication
- https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.18068
Abstract
We planned a randomised controlled trial across maternity centres in Ireland to establish which of two tests performed in labour is better in terms of reducing the rate of caesarean section (CS) in labour, without adversely affecting outcomes for the baby. We aimed to randomise 2500 women who required one of these second-line tests of foetal wellbeing in labour, comparing digital foetal scalp stimulation (dFSS) with foetal blood sampling (FBS). Because of lower-than-expected randomisation numbers, the trial finished early. Of 534 consented participants, 124 had a second-line test of foetal well-being in labour and 43 (35%) were randomised; 20 to dFSS and 23 to FBS. The rate of CS was 40% (8/20) in the dFSS group and 48% (11/23) in the FBS group. There was no significant difference in rates of adverse outcomes for the women or babies involved. Of the non-randomised participants who received a second-line test, 65% (53/81) received dFSS. The final small sample size of the trial limits the ability to conclude whether dFSS is a better second-line test of foetal well-being in labour than FBS. It seemed that clinicians preferred using dFSS, even though robust evidence is lacking for use of this test.