Fungibility, accessibility and clinical utility of remote electronic fetal monitoring in improving maternal emotional status compared with traditional method: A multicenter prospective cohort analysis.

Objective: Supported by remote signal processing techniques and wireless communication technology, remote electronic fetal monitoring (REFM) has emerged as a promising alternative to traditional electronic fetal monitoring (TEFM) in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparability, accessibility, and clinical utility of REFM in contrast to TEFM.

Methods: This was a multicenter prospective cohort study. A cohort of 2900 pregnant women were enrolled from three medical centers between June 1, 2021 and June 31, 2022. Among them, 800 utilized REFM, with 760 of them completing the self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) and self-rating depression scale (SDS) assessments using the devices for 1 month. The control group comprised 2100 pregnant women who did not use REFM. Additionally, 80 pregnant women concurrently employed both REFM and TEFM, and their respective curve coincidence rates were determined through curve fitting. Primary outcomes encompassed pregnancy outcomes in both groups, average curve coincidence rates between REFM and TEFM, as well as SDS and SAS scores.

Results: Among the 760 pregnant women who completed SAS and SDS assessments, their average SAS scores before and after 1 month of REFM usage were 43.09 ± 8.04 and 41.58 ± 6.59, respectively. Concurrently, the average SDS scores before and after 1 month of REFM usage were 45.45 ± 9.60 and 44.80 ± 9.17, respectively. A statistically significant decrease was observed in SAS scores (P = 0.005), whereas no significant difference was noted in SDS scores (P = 0.340). Furthermore, a statistically significant difference in the rate of adverse pregnancy outcomes (neonatal asphyxia) emerged between the two groups, those who employed REFM and those who did not (P = 0.021). In the subset of 80 pregnant women employing both REFM and TEFM, all 80 results showed precise congruence between the two methods. The average coincidence rate was determined to be 79.45% ± 12.64%.

Conclusion: REFM contributes to improved pregnancy outcomes and exhibits a high level of concordance with TEFM, thereby accurately reflecting the quality of fetal heart monitoring. Additionally, REFM effectively mitigates pregnant women's anxiety. Thus, REFM demonstrates comparability, accessibility, and clinical utility.