| Literature DB >> 34697569 |
Huiling Liu1, Huiyuan Niu1, Wenqiong Zeng1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study explored the clinical application value of image denoising algorithm combined with Doppler ultrasound imaging in evaluation of aspirin combined with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) on fetal growth restriction (FGR).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34697569 PMCID: PMC8541844 DOI: 10.1155/2021/9697962
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Specific flowchart of the algorithm.
Basic data of patients.
| Group | Age (years) | BMI (kg/m2) | Average gestational week at admission (weeks) | Menstrual women/primiparous women (cases) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 31.73 ± 7.05 | 24.56 ± 1.28 | 35.06 ± 3.15 | 21/19 |
| Group B | 32.34 ± 7.63 | 24.37 ± 1.37 | 35.12 ± 3.08 | 18/22 |
BMI: body mass index.
Comparison on clinical efficacy.
| Group | Markedly effective | Effective | Ineffective | Total effective rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 21 | 14 | 5 | 87.5 |
| Group B | 12 | 13 | 15 | 62.5 |
Comparison of fetal UA BFPs and AFI before and after treatment.
| Group | Group A | Group B | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| PI | 1.29 ± 0.26 | 0.72 ± 0.19#∗ | 1.28 ± 0.29 | 0.92 ± 0.21#∗ |
| RI | 1.00 ± 0.18 | 0.57 ± 0.17#∗ | 1.02 ± 0.19 | 0.75 ± 0.14#∗ |
| S/D | 3.20 ± 0.41 | 2.26 ± 0.43#∗ | 3.18 ± 0.52 | 2.64 ± 0.45#∗ |
| PSV (s) | 50.42 ± 10.08 | 41.6 ± 10.13 | 52.01 ± 11.14 | 42.87 ± 11.39 |
| AFI (cm) | 10.28 ± 1.96 | 13.71 ± 2.21 | 10.36 ± 2.07 | 11.38 ± 2.16 |
Note. # suggests that the difference was statistically obvious compared with the value before treatment in the same group (P < 0.05), and indicates that the difference was statistically great in contrast to the value in group B (P < 0.05).
Comparison on fetal MCA BFPs and AFI before and after treatment.
| Group | Group A | Group B | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| PI | 1.78 ± 0.26 | 1.31 ± 0.18# | 1.75 ± 0.23 | 1.73 ± 0.25#∗ |
| RI | 1.23 ± 0.05 | 0.75 ± 0.03# | 1.26 ± 0.04 | 0.81 ± 0.05#∗ |
| S/D | 5.38 ± 0.61 | 3.75 ± 0.58# | 5.45 ± 0.64 | 5.11 ± 1.09#∗ |
| PSV | 50.03 ± 12.86 | 42.01 ± 13.86 | 50.15 ± 13.82 | 43.52 ± 13.51 |
Note. # suggests that the difference was statistically obvious compared with the value before treatment in the same group (P < 0.05), and indicates that the difference was statistically great in contrast to the value in group B (P < 0.05).
Comparison of fetal CPR in two groups before and after treatment.
| Group | Group A | Group B | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| CPR | 1.379 | 1.81#∗ | 1.367 | 1.88#∗ |
Note. # suggests that the difference was statistically obvious compared with the value before treatment in the same group (P < 0.05), and indicates that the difference was statistically great in contrast to the value in group B (P < 0.05).
Average weekly fetal growth indicators for the two groups.
| Group | Fetal double parietal diameter (mm) | Femur diameter (mm) | Head circumference (cm) | Abdominal circumference (cm) | Uterine height (cm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 2.4 ± 0.9∗ | 2.2 ± 0.6∗ | 1.2 ± 0.4∗ | 1.3 ± 0.7∗ | 0.8 ± 0.3∗ |
| Group B | 1.8 ± 0.4 | 1.7 ± 0.5 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.4 | 0.4 ± 0.6 |
Note. indicates that the difference was statistically great in contrast to the value in group B (P < 0.05).
Comparison of adverse events between the two groups.
| Group | Placental abruption | Fetal distress | Oligohydramnios | Postpartum hemorrhage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Group B | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Comparison of neonatal outcomes between the two groups.
| Group | Apgar score | Weight (kg) | Gestational age (weeks) | Choking | Premature delivery | Very low weight | Full-term infants |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 9.17 ± 0.26 | 3.57 ± 1.08 | 38.85 ± 2.50 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Group B | 7.33 ± 0.25 | 2.61 ± 1.13 | 36.18 ± 2.25 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Note. indicates that the difference was statistically great in contrast to the value in group B (P < 0.05).
Figure 2Image comparison before and after LPG-PCA denoising. (a) The original ultrasound image; (b) the ultrasound image obtained after denoising.