By Shawn Kennedy, MA, RN, interim editor-in-chief

Last week, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) reported (abstract available here) on a Dutch multi-center randomized trial comparing internal versus external monitoring of uterine contractions during induced labor on rate of cesarean or instrument delivery. Among secondary outcomes they examined were use of analgesia, oxytocin and antibiotics, adverse neonatal effects, and complications from the intrauterine catheter (hemorrhage, sepsis, among others).

What caught my eye was the first sentence of the paper, which read, “The monitoring of uterine contractions by means of internal tocodynamometry during induction or augmentation of labor is advocated by professional societies in obstetrics and gynecology.” Yet, as this study points out, there has been little data to support the societies’ recommendation for internal monitoring. And, lo and behold, the results of this trial “do not support the routine use of internal tocodynamometry for monitoring  contractions in women with induced or augmented labor.”

This reminds me very much of electronic fetal monitoring. […]