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.

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.

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.

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.

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03854435.