Literature DB >> 26575523

Uterine electromyography during active phase compared with latent phase of labor at term.

Andreja Trojner Bregar1, Miha Lucovnik1, Ivan Verdenik1, Franc Jager2, Ksenija Gersak1, Robert E Garfield3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In a prospective study in a tertiary university hospital we wanted to determine whether uterine electromyography (EMG) can differentiate between the active and latent phase of labor.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty women presenting at ≥37(0/7) weeks of gestation with regular uterine contractions, intact membranes, and a Bishop score <6. EMG was recorded from the abdominal surface for 30 min. Latent phase was defined as no cervical change within at least 4 h. Student's t-test was used for statistical analysis (p ≤ 0.05 significant). Diagnostic accuracy of EMG was determined by receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis. The integral of the amplitudes of the power density spectrum (PDS) corresponding to the PDS energy within the "bursts" of uterine EMG activity was compared between the active and latent labor groups.
RESULTS: Seventeen (57%) women were found to be in the active phase of labor and 13 (43%) were in the latent phase. The EMG PDS integral was significantly higher (p = 0.02) in the active (mean 3.40 ± 0.82 μV) compared with the latent (mean 1.17 ± 0.33 μV) phase of labor. The PDS integral had an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.80 to distinguish between active and latent phases of labor, compared with number of contractions on tocodynamometry (AUC = 0.79), and Bishop score (AUC = 0.78). The combination (sum) of PDS integral, tocodynamometry, and Bishop score predicted active phase of labor with an AUC of 0.90.
CONCLUSIONS: Adding uterine EMG measurements to the methods currently used in the clinics could improve the accuracy of diagnosing active labor.
© 2015 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Uterine electromyography; active labor; electrohysterography; latent labor; power density spectrum

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26575523     DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12818

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand        ISSN: 0001-6349            Impact factor:   3.636


  3 in total

Review 1.  Alvarez waves in pregnancy: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Sara Russo; Arnaldo Batista; Filipa Esgalhado; Catarina R Palma Dos Reis; Fátima Serrano; Valentina Vassilenko; Manuel Ortigueira
Journal:  Biophys Rev       Date:  2021-07-08

2.  Review and Study of Uterine Bioelectrical Waveforms and Vector Analysis to Identify Electrical and Mechanosensitive Transduction Control Mechanisms During Labor in Pregnant Patients.

Authors:  R E Garfield; Lauren Murphy; Kendra Gray; Bruce Towe
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2020-10-22       Impact factor: 3.060

3.  Identification of myoelectric signals of pregnant rat uterus: new method to detect myometrial contraction.

Authors:  Kálmán F Szűcs; György Grosz; Miklós Süle; Anikó Nagy; Zita Tiszai; Reza Samavati; Róbert Gáspár
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2017-04-14       Impact factor: 1.351

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.