论文部分内容阅读
目的:观察比较间歇式胎心听诊和连续性胎心监护的临床效果,分析其各自的优缺点。方法:将本院2012年6月-2012年12月收治的180例低危孕产妇,随机分为观察组和对照组各90例,观察组运用间歇式胎心听诊,对照组采用连续性胎心监护,分析比较两组孕妇临产过程中胎儿宫内窘迫率、新生儿窒息率以及剖宫产率。结果:两组低危孕妇使用间歇式胎心听诊和连续性胎心监护,胎儿的宫内窘迫率以及新生儿窒息率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但两组剖宫产率差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:对于低危孕妇可以采用间歇式胎心听诊,而高危孕妇则需要采用连续性胎心监护。
Objective: To observe and compare the clinical effect of intermittent fetal heart auscultation and continuous fetal heart monitoring, analyze their respective advantages and disadvantages. Methods: 180 cases of low-risk pregnant women admitted from June 2012 to December 2012 in our hospital were randomly divided into observation group and control group with 90 cases each. The observation group received intermittent fetal auscultation while the control group received continuous fetal Heart care, analysis and comparison of two groups of pregnant women during labor intrauterine fetal distress rate, neonatal asphyxia rate and cesarean section rate. Results: There were no significant differences in intermittent fetal heart rate auscultation, continuous fetal heart rate monitoring, intrauterine fetal distress rate and neonatal asphyxia between two groups of low-risk pregnant women (P> 0.05). However, The difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion: Intermittent fetal heart auscultation can be used for low-risk pregnancies, whereas high-risk pregnant women require continuous fetal heart monitoring.