Literature DB >> 23345009

Comparison of real beat-to-beat signals with commercially available 4 Hz sampling on the evaluation of foetal heart rate variability.

Hernâni Gonçalves1, Antónia Costa, Diogo Ayres-de-Campos, Cristina Costa-Santos, Ana Paula Rocha, João Bernardes.   

Abstract

Evaluation of foetal heart rate (FHR) variability is an essential part of foetal monitoring, but a precise quantification of this parameter depends on the quality of the signal. In this study, we compared real FHR beat-to-beat signals with 4 Hz sampling provided by commercial foetal monitors on linear and nonlinear indices and analysed their clinical implications. Simultaneous acquisition of beat-to-beat signals and their 4 Hz sampling rate counterparts was performed using a scalp electrode, during the last hour of labour in 21 fetuses born with an umbilical artery blood (UAB) pH ≥ 7.20 and 6 born with an UAB pH < 7.20. For each case, the first and last 10 min segments were analysed, using time and frequency domain linear, and nonlinear FHR indices, namely mean FHR, low frequency, high frequency, approximate, sample and multiscale entropy. Significant differences in variability indices were found between beat-to-beat and 4 Hz sampled signals, with a lesser effect seen with 2 Hz sampling. These differences did not affect physiological changes observed during labour progression, such as decreased entropy and linear time domain indices, and increased frequency domain indices. However, significant differences were found in the discrimination between fetuses born with different UAB pHs, with beat-to-beat sampling providing better results in linear indices and 4 Hz sampling better results in entropy indices. In conclusion, different FHR sampling frequencies can significantly affect the quantification of variability indices. This needs to be taken into account in the interpretation of FHR variability and in the development of new equipment.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23345009     DOI: 10.1007/s11517-013-1036-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput        ISSN: 0140-0118            Impact factor:   2.602


  34 in total

1.  Physiological time-series analysis using approximate entropy and sample entropy.

Authors:  J S Richman; J R Moorman
Journal:  Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 4.733

2.  Approximate entropy as a measure of system complexity.

Authors:  S M Pincus
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1991-03-15       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Computerised intrapartum diagnosis of fetal hypoxia based on fetal heart rate monitoring and fetal pulse oximetry recordings utilising wavelet analysis and neural networks.

Authors:  E Salamalekis; P Thomopoulos; D Giannaris; I Salloum; G Vasios; A Prentza; D Koutsouris
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 6.531

4.  Multiscale entropy analysis of complex physiologic time series.

Authors:  Madalena Costa; Ary L Goldberger; C-K Peng
Journal:  Phys Rev Lett       Date:  2002-07-19       Impact factor: 9.161

5.  Linear and nonlinear analysis of heart rate patterns associated with fetal behavioral states in the antepartum period.

Authors:  Hernâni Gonçalves; João Bernardes; Ana Paula Rocha; Diogo Ayres-de-Campos
Journal:  Early Hum Dev       Date:  2007-01-29       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  Internal versus external intrapartum foetal heart rate monitoring: the effect on linear and nonlinear parameters.

Authors:  Hernâni Gonçalves; Ana Paula Rocha; Diogo Ayres-de-Campos; João Bernardes
Journal:  Physiol Meas       Date:  2006-02-06       Impact factor: 2.833

7.  A multicentre comparative study of 17 experts and an intelligent computer system for managing labour using the cardiotocogram.

Authors:  R D Keith; S Beckley; J M Garibaldi; J A Westgate; E C Ifeachor; K R Greene
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1995-09

8.  Criteria for the design of fetal heart rate analysis systems.

Authors:  G S Dawes; M Moulden; C W Redman
Journal:  Int J Biomed Comput       Date:  1990-05

9.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  A comparison of ultrasound (with autocorrelation) and direct electrocardiogram fetal heart rate detector systems.

Authors:  G W Lawson; R Belcher; G S Dawes; C W Redman
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1983-11-15       Impact factor: 8.661

View more
  10 in total

1.  Toward the improvement in fetal monitoring during labor with the inclusion of maternal heart rate analysis.

Authors:  Hernâni Gonçalves; Paula Pinto; Manuela Silva; Diogo Ayres-de-Campos; João Bernardes
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2015-07-29       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 2.  Monitoring fetal maturation-objectives, techniques and indices of autonomic function.

Authors:  Dirk Hoyer; Jan Żebrowski; Dirk Cysarz; Hernâni Gonçalves; Adelina Pytlik; Célia Amorim-Costa; João Bernardes; Diogo Ayres-de-Campos; Otto W Witte; Ekkehard Schleußner; Lisa Stroux; Christopher Redman; Antoniya Georgieva; Stephen Payne; Gari Clifford; Maria G Signorini; Giovanni Magenes; Fernando Andreotti; Hagen Malberg; Sebastian Zaunseder; Igor Lakhno; Uwe Schneider
Journal:  Physiol Meas       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 2.833

3.  Is Abdominal Fetal Electrocardiography an Alternative to Doppler Ultrasound for FHR Variability Evaluation?

Authors:  Janusz Jezewski; Janusz Wrobel; Adam Matonia; Krzysztof Horoba; Radek Martinek; Tomasz Kupka; Michal Jezewski
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2017-05-16       Impact factor: 4.566

4.  New Method for Beat-to-Beat Fetal Heart Rate Measurement Using Doppler Ultrasound Signal.

Authors:  Tomasz Kupka; Adam Matonia; Michal Jezewski; Janusz Jezewski; Krzysztof Horoba; Janusz Wrobel; Robert Czabanski; Radek Martinek
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-07-22       Impact factor: 3.576

5.  Complexity of Cardiotocographic Signals as A Predictor of Labor.

Authors:  João Monteiro-Santos; Teresa Henriques; Inês Nunes; Célia Amorim-Costa; João Bernardes; Cristina Costa-Santos
Journal:  Entropy (Basel)       Date:  2020-01-16       Impact factor: 2.524

6.  Non-invasive Fetal Electrocardiography for Intrapartum Cardiotocography.

Authors:  Rik Vullings; Judith O E H van Laar
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 3.418

7.  Non-linear Methods Predominant in Fetal Heart Rate Analysis: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Maria Ribeiro; João Monteiro-Santos; Luísa Castro; Luís Antunes; Cristina Costa-Santos; Andreia Teixeira; Teresa S Henriques
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-11-30

8.  Editorial: Perinatology in the Era of Big Data and Nanoparticles.

Authors:  Martin G Frasch
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2015-11-05       Impact factor: 3.418

Review 9.  Frequency and Time Domain Analysis of Foetal Heart Rate Variability with Traditional Indexes: A Critical Survey.

Authors:  Maria Romano; Luigi Iuppariello; Alfonso Maria Ponsiglione; Giovanni Improta; Paolo Bifulco; Mario Cesarelli
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 2.238

10.  Electrocardiography versus photoplethysmography in assessment of maternal heart rate variability during labor.

Authors:  Hernâni Gonçalves; Paula Pinto; Manuela Silva; Diogo Ayres-de-Campos; João Bernardes
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2016-07-15
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.