RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 different methods (auscultation with a stethoscope and umbilical cord palpation) of heart rate (HR) estimation in newborns at risk for resuscitation in a low-resource setting. STUDY DESIGN: Sixty newborns at risk for resuscitation born at the St. Luke Catholic Hospital in Wolisso (Ethiopia) were randomized to HR assessment by auscultation using a stethoscope or umbilical cord palpation. HR was assessed at 60, 90, 120 seconds, and 5 minutes of life. The primary outcome was the agreement of HR obtained by auscultation or palpation compared with the HR determined by electrocardiogram. RESULTS: Mean difference between auscultation using a stethoscope and electrocardiogram was -13 bpm, -4 bpm, -6 bpm, and -10 bpm at 60, 90, 120 seconds, and at 5 minutes of life. Mean difference between palpation and electrocardiogram of was -20 bpm, -25 bpm, -23 bpm, and -31 bpm at 60, 90, 120 seconds, and at 5 minutes of life. The magnitude of the difference between auscultation and electrocardiogram was lower than that between palpation and electrocardiogram over time (P = .007). HR range was correctly identified in 14 out of 16 measurements (87%) with HR <100 bpm. CONCLUSION: HR assessment by auscultation was more accurate compared with cord palpation, but both may provide adequate clinical information to healthcare providers in terms of HR ranges. The clinical advantage of providing a stethoscope in low-resource settings remains to be established. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03854435.