N Sänger1, B R Hayes-Gill2, S Schiermeier3, W Hatzmann3, J Yuan1, E Herrmann4, F Louwen1, J Reinhard5. 1. Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 2. School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom. 3. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Teaching Hospital of the Ruhr-University Bochum, Witten, Germany. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Mathematical Models, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 5. Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate foetal signal quality obtained using an antenatal foetal ECG system (Monica 24™) and compare it with Doppler ultrasound CTG monitoring (Corometrics® 250 series). Material and Methods: Seventy pregnant women (gestational age: between 20 + 0 weeks and 40 + 0 weeks) were examined using the Monica AN24™ system and also underwent Doppler CTG. The signal quality of both methods was compared and correlated with gestational age and pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI). Results: Overall, ECG had a signal quality of 77.4 % and CTG had a signal quality of 73.1 % (p > 0.05). In gestational weeks (GW) 20-26, the signal quality of ECG was significantly better compared to that obtained with CTG (75.5 vs. 45.3 %; p = 0.003), while in GW 27-36, the signal quality was better with CTG (72.3 vs. 83.0 %, p = 0.001). No difference in signal quality was found between the two methods after the 37th GW (87.7 vs. 86.1 %; p > 0.05). CTG showed a statistically significant correlation with BMI (rho 0.25, p < 0.05) while ECG showed no such correlation. Conclusion: The use of non-invasive ECG is particularly indicated in the early weeks of pregnancy, while CTG offers superior results during the vernix period. There was no difference in signal quality after the vernix period. The signal quality with ECG was found to be independent of BMI, while the signal quality of CTG deteriorated with increasing BMI.
Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate foetal signal quality obtained using an antenatal foetal ECG system (Monica 24™) and compare it with Doppler ultrasound CTG monitoring (Corometrics® 250 series). Material and Methods: Seventy pregnant women (gestational age: between 20 + 0 weeks and 40 + 0 weeks) were examined using the Monica AN24™ system and also underwent Doppler CTG. The signal quality of both methods was compared and correlated with gestational age and pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI). Results: Overall, ECG had a signal quality of 77.4 % and CTG had a signal quality of 73.1 % (p > 0.05). In gestational weeks (GW) 20-26, the signal quality of ECG was significantly better compared to that obtained with CTG (75.5 vs. 45.3 %; p = 0.003), while in GW 27-36, the signal quality was better with CTG (72.3 vs. 83.0 %, p = 0.001). No difference in signal quality was found between the two methods after the 37th GW (87.7 vs. 86.1 %; p > 0.05). CTG showed a statistically significant correlation with BMI (rho 0.25, p < 0.05) while ECG showed no such correlation. Conclusion: The use of non-invasive ECG is particularly indicated in the early weeks of pregnancy, while CTG offers superior results during the vernix period. There was no difference in signal quality after the vernix period. The signal quality with ECG was found to be independent of BMI, while the signal quality of CTG deteriorated with increasing BMI.
Entities:
Keywords:
cardiotocogram (CTG); foetal electrocardiogram (ECG); signal quality antenatally
Authors: J Reinhard; B R Hayes-Gill; S Schiermeier; H Löser; L M Niedballa; E Haarmann; A Sonnwald; W Hatzmann; T M Heinrich; F Louwen Journal: Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol Date: 2011-10-25 Impact factor: 0.685
Authors: S Schiermeier; S Pildner von Steinburg; A Thieme; J Reinhard; M Daumer; M Scholz; W Hatzmann; K T M Schneider Journal: BJOG Date: 2008-08-25 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Kajal K Tamber; Dexter J L Hayes; Stephen J Carey; Jayawan H B Wijekoon; Alexander E P Heazell Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 3.240