Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
5-Year IF – 2.0, IF – 1.9, JCI (2024) – 0.43
Scopus CiteScore – 4.3
Q1 in SJR 2024, SJR score – 0.598, H-index: 49 (SJR)
ICV – 161.00; MNiSW – 70 pts
Initial editorial assessment and first decision within 24 h

ISSN 1899–5276 (print), ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2014, vol. 23, nr 5, September-October, p. 813–819

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Signal Loss During Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring Using Maternal Abdominal Surface Electrodes Between 28 and 42 Weeks of Pregnancy

Tomasz Fuchs1,A,B,D, Michał Pomorski1,B, Krzysztof Grobelak1,C,D, Marek Tomiałowicz1,B, Mariusz Zimmer1,E,F

1 2nd Department and Clinic of Gynaecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

Abstract

Background. Fetal electrocardiography is one of the methods for monitoring the well-being of the fetus. Signal loss limits the proper interpretation of electrocardiogram traces.
Objectives. The aim of this study was to assess the average signal loss in non-invasive abdominal fetal electrocardiogram (fECG) monitoring using the KOMPOREL fetal monitoring system (ITAM, Zabrze, Poland) in women between 28 and 42 week of pregnancy. The results were compared to FIGO (International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetric) and DGGG (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe e.V.) recommendations concerning fetal heart monitoring. The correlation between fetal ECG signal quality, week of pregnancy and patient BMI was evaluated.
Material and Methods. 773 pregnant women, hospitalized and diagnosed in the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Wroclaw Medical University, underwent 30 min of abdominal fECG recordings using the KOMPOREL fetal monitoring system.
Results. The average signal loss in abdominal fECG monitoring in the study group was 32%. FIGO recommendations describe an acceptable fetal signal loss of 20%. In our study, 46% (357/773) of the recordings were up to FIGO standards, with fetal heart rate success rates above 80%. According to DGGG guidelines, with acceptable fetal signal loss of 15%, only 39% (303/773) of the recordings could be assessed as accurate. No correlation between fECG signal quality, week of pregnancy and patient BMI was proved.
Conclusion. The average signal loss in abdominal fECG monitoring in our study group was 32%. Low fECG signal quality may constitute a potentially limiting factor of the described fetal heart monitoring system. No relationship between fECG signal quality, week of pregnancy and patient BMI was proved.

Key words

non-invasive fetal electrocardiography, fetal heart rate monitoring, abdominal fetal electrocardiography, signal loss in abdominal fetal electrocardiography.

References (27)

  1. Jenkins HM: Technical progress in fetal electrocardiography – a review. J Perinat Med 1986, 14, 365–370.
  2. Martens SM, Rabotti C, Mischi M, Sluijter RJ: A robust fetal ECG detection method for abdominal recordings. Physiol Meas 2007, 28, 373–388.
  3. Adam J: The future of fetal monitoring. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2012, 5, 132–136.
  4. Rosén KG, Amer-Wåhlin I, Luzietti R, Norén H: Fetal ECG waveform analysis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2004, 18, 485–514.
  5. Rooth G, Huch A, Huch R: Guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1987, 25, 159–167.
  6. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur perinatale Medizin, AG fur maternofetale Medizin, deutsche Gesellschaft fur Gynakologie und Geburtshilfe Anwendung des CTG wahrend chwangerschaft und Geburt. Frauenarzt 2004, 45, 979–989.
  7. Zimmer M, Hirnle L, Fuchs T, Florjański J, Tomiałowicz M, Kłósek A, Milnerowicz-Nabzdyk E: The influence of computer supervision of deliveries on the medical procedures during labor and neonatal post-delivery status. Ginekol Pol 2000, 71, 187–191.
  8. Alfirevic Z, Devane D, Gyte GM: Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006.
  9. Schiermeier S, Westhof G, Leven A, Hatzmann H, Reinhard J: Intraand interobserver variability of intrapartum cardiotocography: a multicenter study comparing the FIGO classification with computer analysis software. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2011, 72, 169–173.
  10. Sweha A, Hacker TW, Nuovo J: Interpretation of the electronic fetal heart rate during labor. Am Fam Physician 1999, 59, 2487–2500.
  11. Salamalekis E, Vitoratos N, Loghis C, Panayotopoulos N, Kassanos D, Creatsas G: Evaluation of fetal heart rate patterns during the second stage of labor through fetal oximetry. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1999, 48, 151–154.
  12. Leatherman J, Parchman ML, Lawler FH: Infection of fetal scalp electrode monitoring sites. Am Fam Physician 1992, 45, 579–582.
  13. Salmelin A, Wiklund I, Bottinga R, Brorsson B, Ekman-Ordeberg G, Grimfors EE, Hanson U, Blom M, Persson E: Fetal monitoring with computerized ST analysis during labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013, 92, 28–39.
  14. Ayres-de-Campos D, Bernardes J: Twenty-five years after the FIGO guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring: Time for a simplified approach? Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010, 110, 1–6.
  15. Crowe JA, Herbert JM, Huang XB, Reed N, Wolfson MS, Rassi D, Zhuravlev YE, Emery SJ: Sequential recording of the abdominal fetal electrocardiogram and magnetocardiogram. Physiol Meas 1995, 16, 43–47.
  16. Stinstra J, Golbach E, van Leeuwen P, Lange S, Menendez T, Moshage W, Schleussner E, Kaehler C, Horigome H, Shigemitsu S, Peters MJ: Multicentre study of fetal cardiac time intervals using magnetocardiography. BJOG 2002, 109, 1235–1243.
  17. Quinn A, Weir A, Shahani U, Bain R, Maas P, Donaldson G: Antenatal fetal magnetocardiography – a new method for fetal surveillance? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994, 101, 866–870.
  18. Quartero HW, Stinstra JG, Golbach EG, Meijboom EJ, Peters MJ: Clinical implications of fetal magnetocardiography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002, 20, 142–153.
  19. Spencer JAD, Belcher R, Dawes GS: The influence of signal loss on the comparison between computer analyses of the fetal heart-rate in labor using pulsed Doppler ultrasound (with autocorrelation) and simultaneous scalp electrocardiogram. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1987, 25, 29–34.
  20. Bakker PC, Colenbrander GJ, Verstraeten AA, Van Geijn HP: The quality of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004, 116, 22–27.
  21. Dawes GS, Visser GH, Goodman JD, Redman CW: Numerical analysis of the human fetal heart rate – the quality of ultrasound records. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981, 141, 43–52.
  22. Cohen WR, Ommani S, Hassan S, Mirza FG, Solomon M, Brown R, Schifrin BS, Himsworth JM, Hayes-Gill BR: Accuracy and reliability of fetal heart rate monitoring using maternal abdominal surface electrodes. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012, 91, 1306–1313.
  23. Reinhard J, Hayes-Gill BR, Schiermeier S, Hatzmann W, Herrmann E, Heinrich TM, Louwen F: Intrapartum signal quality with external fetal heart rate monitoring: a two way trial of external Doppler CTG ultrasound and the abdominal fetal electrocardiogram. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012, 286, 1103–1107.
  24. Clifford G, Sameni R, Ward J, Robinson J, Wolfberg AJ: Clinically accurate fetal ECG parameters acquired from maternal abdominal sensors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011, 205, 47, 1–5.
  25. Taylor MJ, Smith MJ, Thomas M, Green AR, Cheng F, Oseku-Afful S, Wee LY, Fisk NM, Gardiner HM: Noninvasive fetal electrocardiography in singleton and multiple pregnancies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2003, 110, 668–678.
  26. Chia EL, Ho TF, Rauff M, Yip WC: Cardiac time intervals of normal fetuses using noninvasive fetal electrocardiography. Prenat Diagn 2005, 25, 546–552.
  27. Solum T: A comparison of the three methods for external fetal cardiography. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1980, 59, 123–126.
© Wroclaw Medical University