tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20642800.post741624119376500961..comments2024-03-05T11:36:50.299-05:00Comments on Stand and Deliver: Test leads to needless c-sectionsRixahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07908864785513937876noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20642800.post-15126414147107499302013-11-04T17:49:48.050-05:002013-11-04T17:49:48.050-05:00May I use the image of efm above? I am doing a pr...May I use the image of efm above? I am doing a project for school (power point) showing where use of Spice Gold (synthetic marijuana) can mimic s/s of ecmampsia and patient can be treated for the wrong thing. anna-rust101@hotmail.comannarust101https://www.blogger.com/profile/01114390795170742264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20642800.post-1271292657146607002011-01-15T05:10:06.756-05:002011-01-15T05:10:06.756-05:00At my first birth the EFM showed my daughter was d...At my first birth the EFM showed my daughter was distressed so she was cut out. My second birth, EFM showed my son was fine, but he was cut out because of previous c/sec possibly causing a rupture. He was actually dangerously distressed, apgars of 7 at 1min and 3, at 5. My third birth showed my son was fine, heart rate doing well. He was DEAD. he had died two days prior to his birth. <br /><br />At my fourth birth I stayed home.Thermo Nuclear Kitchenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807089277924962164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20642800.post-33194489691437389112010-05-07T20:45:47.664-04:002010-05-07T20:45:47.664-04:00scuppie, the same thing happened to me during the ...scuppie, the same thing happened to me during the pushing stage. For my labour the nurses used intermittent hand-held monitoring, but the ob-gyn used cEFM for the pushing stage. According to the cEFM my baby's heart rate was dropping during pushing. I had been pushing for max 20 min, and was tearing a bit, but my doc cut an episiotomy to get the baby out on the next push. He had 9 apgar, so where was the fetal distress?Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20642800.post-30026867382737967272010-05-06T22:17:27.086-04:002010-05-06T22:17:27.086-04:00Just my experience...
I had an epidural so was co...Just my experience...<br /><br />I had an epidural so was continuously monitored during my labor. During several points while I was pushing my daughter's heart rate was recorded as dropping to about 95 bpm, which caused the midwife to become concerned and she paged a doctor. It was frustrating to me because I intuited everything was fine and really wondered how accurate the monitoring was. While I was pushing the monitor seemed to be moving around on my stomach and it seemed to me that it wouldn't be getting an accurate reading. I don't have any medical training, but had read enough during my pregnancy to know that this type of monitoring was frequently unnecessary and inaccurate. My daughter was born totally healthy with a 9 on her 1 minute apgar, fortunately with no further interventions.<br /><br />Hahahaha -- my verification word was "manger."Meghanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11458440123283100283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20642800.post-4280062696381799322010-05-06T20:29:29.245-04:002010-05-06T20:29:29.245-04:00You have to remember that we're talking about ...You have to remember that we're talking about continuous electronic fetal monitoring versus intermittent hand-held monitoring, not cEFM versus no monitoring at all. <br /><br />So Xiaoshan, I'm guessing Melanie had cEFM once she had the Pit & epidural (because it is prudent to use that kind of monitoring with the increased risks of those medical technologies). But either way, hand-held auscultation could have also showed that the baby was doing fine, and I'm guessing that's the form your midwives used for much of the labor until Melanie chose to use Pitocin. <br /><br />There is a very well-documented increase in cesarean rates (which numerous health implications for mother and baby, both long- and short-term) with no increase in benefit to the baby using cEFM versus hand-held monitoring. That's what this physician is discussing. Does that make sense?Rixahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07908864785513937876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20642800.post-85792103778237893372010-05-06T18:46:42.990-04:002010-05-06T18:46:42.990-04:00One other thought I had was this:
I think in the ...One other thought I had was this:<br /><br />I think in the case of Melanie and I, fetal monitoring may have prevented an unnecessary cesearean - the doctors at the hospital were wanting to do a c-section after failure to progress after 10-12 hours of active labor. But because our baby's vitals were still showing fine from the monitoring - so our midwives were able to keep the doctors away, saying that there was no need for a c-section as the baby was doing just fine.<br /><br />Anyway, just a thought.Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14802436359320403766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20642800.post-9439041997321841272010-05-06T17:15:02.737-04:002010-05-06T17:15:02.737-04:00I like how they're surprised the test doesn...I like how they're surprised the test doesn't work-how could it possibly work when no proper trials were done in the early days of EFM to establish proper baselines?<br /><br />How can these proponents of medical SCIENCE keep being shocked by such an obvious oversight?<br /><br />And why is this news? We've known EFM is a shoddy test for a while now, what should be news is that it's still being used!Curlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06176883112936068271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20642800.post-51273369976455488732010-05-06T15:11:50.079-04:002010-05-06T15:11:50.079-04:00Xiaoshan, but it's not that simple. Unnecessar...Xiaoshan, but it's not that simple. Unnecessary surgery raises the mortality risks for both baby and mother. So a c/section done "just to be safe" also has a safety cost, and not a small one.<br /><br />One of the biggest problems we have now is that in the US, postpartum death and injury is not well-tracked; it's possible our mortality risks are worse (or better) than we know. All of which makes weighing risk harder.<br /><br />Plus, absent EFM, the doctor would still be monitoring the woman, only intermittently and possibly using different methods.emjaybeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20642800.post-82212538046421641402010-05-06T13:32:43.722-04:002010-05-06T13:32:43.722-04:00Certainly FHM results in needless c/s. The example...Certainly FHM results in needless c/s. The example given was a rather bad one though. An eclamptic patient, especially a diabetic eclamptic woman has several risk factors without the fetal monitoring. By and large continuous fetal monitoring is probably not needed, but in her example I think it probably was.Märiahttp://www.rushingaround.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20642800.post-63182133128759926492010-05-06T11:50:58.622-04:002010-05-06T11:50:58.622-04:00Not defending monitoring per se, but in this case ...Not defending monitoring per se, but in this case wouldn't we prefer Type I errors (false positives resulting in unnecessary c-section) over Type II (false negative - necessary c-section, but don't)?Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14802436359320403766noreply@blogger.com