OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of the rapid biophysical profile (BPP), the combination of amniotic fluid index (AFI) and sound-provoked fetal movement (SPFM) detected by ultrasound, in predicting intrapartum fetal distress in high-risk pregnancies, compared with the nonstress test (NST). STUDY DESIGN: The prospective study of diagnostic tests was conducted on a total of 1,069 high-risk singleton pregnancies, undergoing antepartum assessment of both the standard NST and the new rapid BPP, including AFI and SPFM detected by ultrasound. Intrapartum continuous fetal heart rate (FHR) monitoring was performed in all of them. The diagnostic indices of the NST and the rapid BPP was calculated in term of predicting intrapartum fetal distress. RESULTS: The rapid BPP was a reliable predictor of intrapartum fetal distress with higher sensitivity and specificity. Its accuracy was better than that of the NST. The incidence of fetal compromise among positive, equivocal, and negative tests of the rapid BPP are 78.57, 15.82 and 0.9%, respectively, whereas the incidence among nonreactive and reactive NST are 31.63 and 2.52%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid BPP is an effective predictor of intrapartum fetal distress in high-risk pregnancies. It may suffice as an inexpensive and less time-consuming method of evaluating antepartum fetal well-being.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of the rapid biophysical profile (BPP), the combination of amniotic fluid index (AFI) and sound-provoked fetal movement (SPFM) detected by ultrasound, in predicting intrapartum fetal distress in high-risk pregnancies, compared with the nonstress test (NST). STUDY DESIGN: The prospective study of diagnostic tests was conducted on a total of 1,069 high-risk singleton pregnancies, undergoing antepartum assessment of both the standard NST and the new rapid BPP, including AFI and SPFM detected by ultrasound. Intrapartum continuous fetal heart rate (FHR) monitoring was performed in all of them. The diagnostic indices of the NST and the rapid BPP was calculated in term of predicting intrapartum fetal distress. RESULTS: The rapid BPP was a reliable predictor of intrapartum fetal distress with higher sensitivity and specificity. Its accuracy was better than that of the NST. The incidence of fetal compromise among positive, equivocal, and negative tests of the rapid BPP are 78.57, 15.82 and 0.9%, respectively, whereas the incidence among nonreactive and reactive NST are 31.63 and 2.52%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid BPP is an effective predictor of intrapartum fetal distress in high-risk pregnancies. It may suffice as an inexpensive and less time-consuming method of evaluating antepartum fetal well-being.