| Literature DB >> 24639886 |
Maria G Signorini1, Andrea Fanelli2, Giovanni Magenes3.
Abstract
Monitoring procedures are the basis to evaluate the clinical state of patients and to assess changes in their conditions, thus providing necessary interventions in time. Both these two objectives can be achieved by integrating technological development with methodological tools, thus allowing accurate classification and extraction of useful diagnostic information. The paper is focused on monitoring procedures applied to fetal heart rate variability (FHRV) signals, collected during pregnancy, in order to assess fetal well-being. The use of linear time and frequency techniques as well as the computation of non linear indices can contribute to enhancing the diagnostic power and reliability of fetal monitoring. The paper shows how advanced signal processing approaches can contribute to developing new diagnostic and classification indices. Their usefulness is evaluated by comparing two selected populations: normal fetuses and intra uterine growth restricted (IUGR) fetuses. Results show that the computation of different indices on FHRV signals, either linear and nonlinear, gives helpful indications to describe pathophysiological mechanisms involved in the cardiovascular and neural system controlling the fetal heart. As a further contribution, the paper briefly describes how the introduction of wearable systems for fetal ECG recording could provide new technological solutions improving the quality and usability of prenatal monitoring.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24639886 PMCID: PMC3930181 DOI: 10.1155/2014/707581
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1Example of CTG graph. The upper trace is fetal heart rate signal obtained by a Doppler ultrasound probe; the baseline is drawn and the arrows represent the detected accelerations. The lower tracing is the toco signal (uterine contractions). Time units are in minutes.
Detailed summary of the two groups of fetuses.
| Population details | Healthy | IUGR |
|---|---|---|
| Number | 61 | 61 |
| Mother age (years) | 32.34 ± 5.64 | 29.68 ± 6.21 |
| Gestational age at CTG recording (days) | 34.78 ± 0.53 | 32.27 ± 2.79 |
| Gestation age at delivery (days) | 39.74 ± 1.15 | 34.15 ± 2.99 |
| Weight of the baby after delivery | 3275 g ± 518 g | 1479 g ± 608 g |
| Delivery mode | 58% spontaneous | 14.8% spontaneous |
Figure 2Phase Rectified Signal Average (PRSA) curve computed on a FHR recording. The computation of the Acceleration Phase Rectified Slope is shown: APRS is defined as the slope of the PRSA curve in the anchor point (red dot).
Methods, extracted parameters, sequence lengths, and hypotheses for using the relevant parameter.
| Method | Parameters | Sequence length | Hypothesis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency domain analysis: | % of spectral power (msec2) in frequency bands: | 3 min | Quantification of the activity of the autonomic nervous system |
|
| |||
| Time domain analysis: morphological HR modification and variability | STV (msec) | 1 min | Variability in the short period |
| FHR avg (msec) | 3 min | Variability in the long period | |
|
| |||
| Approximate entropy | ApEn( | 3 min | Recurrent patterns |
|
| |||
| Sample entropy | SampEn( | 3 min | Recurrent patterns |
|
| |||
| Lempel Ziv complexity (LZC) | LZC binary or ternary coding | Whole recording | Rate of new patterns arising with signal evolution in time |
|
| |||
| PRSA | Acceleration/Deceleration Phase Rectified Slope | Whole recording | Quasiperiodic oscillations |
Results of fetal HRV analysis by parameters in time domain, in frequency domain, by nonlinear indices and PRSA derived indices. Usefulness in separating populations is confirmed by t-test results.
| Parameter | Healthy | IUGR |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (mean ± std) | (mean ± std) | |||
| Time parameters | ||||
| STV (ms) | 6.7 ± 2.24 | 4.29 ± 1.62 | ∗∗∗ | 1.22 |
| Interval index | 0.87 ± 0.07 | 0.86 ± 0.06 | 0.37 | |
| LTI (ms) | 21.46 ± 6.53 | 17.17 ± 5.37 | ∗∗∗ | 1.5 |
| Frequency domain | ||||
| LF (Low Frequency power) | 82.92 ± 5.29 | 81.39 ± 6.13 | 0.17 | |
| MF (Movement Frequency power) | 6.7 ± 2.24 | 11.61 ± 3.50 | 0.63 | |
| HF (High Frequency power) | 5.45 ± 3.18 | 6.65 ± 3.97 | 0.08 | |
| LF/HF + MF | 5.36 ± 1.78 | 4.89 ± 1.76 | 0.16 | |
| Nonlinear parameters | ||||
| ApEn(1, 0.1) | 1.33 ± 0.13 | 1.21 ± 0.11 | ∗∗ | 5.14 |
| Lempel Ziv complexity (2, 0) | 1.00 ± 0.08 | 0.94 ± 0.09 | ∗ | 0.00078 |
| SampEn(1, 0.1) | 1.3 ± 0.19 | 1.13 ± 0.15 | ∗∗ | 2.08 |
| PRSA parameters | ||||
| APRS | 0.17 ± 0.041 | 0.12 ± 0.042 | ∗∗∗ | 7.76 |
| DPRS | −0.18 ± 0.046 | −0.12 ± 0.042 | ∗∗∗ | 1.08 |
Figure 3Boxplots of the significant parameters (the height of each box represents the distance between quartile 1 (25%) and quartile 3 (75%)); the triangular marker is the median; x denotes the maximum; and – marker is the minimum. (a) Diagram contains time domain indices, (b) diagram non linear indices and (c) diagram PRSA indices.
Figure 4Individual data of ApEn(1,0.1) versus LTI. The two groups of IUGRs and healthy fetuses occupy different subspaces in the diagram and can be separated quite easily with very few errors.
Figure 5Example of ECG recording taken from the Telefetalcare system. The identification of maternal (gray dots, down) and fetal (red dots, up) heart beats is computed off-line by a novel algorithm implemented in Matlab.
Figure 6Actual architecture of the Telefetalcare system.