Computerized Labor Monitor (CLM) FDA APPROVALThread
Mar 12, 2007 08:39 PM
A recent question in a local forum about what may be Fetal EEG monitoring happening at a local hospital during labor, got my curiosity peeked aand I have spent the day trying to gather information that ran me into, quite by accident the CLM FDA approval announcement.
The long and the short of it is I am trying to find the studies they claim to have conducted. Any suggestions? I'm sure we all are reminded of Monty Pythons Machines That Go Ping....
Barnev announced FDA approval of their Computerized Labor Monitor (CLM) and premiered it at the Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine meeting in Feb. http://www.obgyn.net/fetal-monitoring/?page=/news/computerized_labor_monitoring
I think many of us had heard of it but may be unaware of the approval and to what extent the approval is for! Research? Testing? Implementation? Wal-Mart sales??
I am no FDA expert, but 3 hours of searching I can find nothing about this device. Perhaps it was approved by the Federation of Dumb A, well you insert your favor A word.
This particular article made me sick to my stomach
Just ONE of the statments that caused my gastric distress
The device provides early warning of problems in delivery, which enables doctors to respond rapidly, reducing the need for later medical intervention. For the birthing mother, access to information throughout labor helps reduce stress.
The only "study" I could find is located here
The other information I have been able to find is mass amounts of it's press release and the letter calling for support and ideas in addressing this device from Debby Gedal-Beer, CNM, MSc. Coordinator of Women's Health and Midwifery Education
I did stumble across another device just as frightning, The LaborPro by TrigMeg http://www.trigmed.com
So, Henci any direction in my quest? I'm feeling a little public and birth community outcry is in the making.
Thank you for your time,
Debbie RedWine, LCCE, CD, LTS, CCCE,
Mar 16, 2007 01:01 AM
I first heard of this dreadful development last year from a horrified midwife acquaintance in Israel who keeps me abreast of things in Israel. I thought she was kidding, or I must be misunderstanding her, but, indeed, as the sites you provide links for, and as my friend made clear, it is for real. I don't know what to tell you other than it seems likely that U.S OBs will probably jump on this like a robin on a junebug, and I don't see what we can do about it. It fits the obstetric belief system and the economic model. It is, as you say, a variation on the "machine that goes PING!" It also seems all of a piece with a story a hospital-based midwife friend of mine here recently told me of feeling the baby's position on a laboring woman's belly when a puzzled obstetric resident observing asked her what she was doing. He really didn't know.
Mar 16, 2007 01:50 AM
Thanks for the reply Henci, it's sad, so very very sad.
For those who want to keep an eye on this, I did find a limited on the FDA site.
This is a Class II device, which means that it has moderate risk and has received FDA marketing clearance. It's got a way to to go, but as you said, I'm sure they will be lining up to get their hands off it. The case video on their site for a machine which is suppose to limit or wipe out vaginal exams, showed SIX manual exams in a 3 hour labor. *sigh*
I emailed the FDA about why it's regulatory status was Opthalmic, they said they were going to correct it.
I also noted that while it has special conditions as a Class II device, those conditions are missing, the FDA said they would be correcting that as well.
The approval for marketing letter is here: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf6/K060028.pdf
Here's to hoping that it fails miserably in future studies and that women refuse to participate!
Thanks again for the input!
Mar 17, 2007 02:12 PM
"Here's to hoping that it fails miserably in future studies and that women refuse to participate!"
From your mouth to God's ears, but pessimist that I am, I doubt it.
All Times America/New_York
Please note that this Forum is intended to help women make informed decisions about their care. The content is not a substitute for medical advice.