Jezewski Janusz, Wrobel Janusz, Matonia Adam, Horoba Krzysztof, Martinek Radek, Kupka Tomasz, Jezewski Michal
Institute of Medical Technology and Equipment ITAMZabrze, Poland.
Department of Cybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, VSB-Technical University of OstravaOstrava, Czechia.
Front Physiol. 2017 May 16;8:305. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00305. eCollection 2017.
Great expectations are connected with application of indirect fetal electrocardiography (FECG), especially for home telemonitoring of pregnancy. Evaluation of fetal heart rate (FHR) variability, when determined from FECG, uses the same criteria as for FHR signal acquired classically-through ultrasound Doppler method (US). Therefore, the equivalence of those two methods has to be confirmed, both in terms of recognizing classical FHR patterns: baseline, accelerations/decelerations (A/D), long-term variability (LTV), as well as evaluating the FHR variability with beat-to-beat accuracy-short-term variability (STV). The research material consisted of recordings collected from 60 patients in physiological and complicated pregnancy. The FHR signals of at least 30 min duration were acquired dually, using two systems for fetal and maternal monitoring, based on US and FECG methods. Recordings were retrospectively divided into normal (41) and abnormal (19) fetal outcome. The complex process of data synchronization and validation was performed. Obtained low level of the signal loss (4.5% for US and 1.8% for FECG method) enabled to perform both direct comparison of FHR signals, as well as indirect one-by using clinically relevant parameters. Direct comparison showed that there is no measurement bias between the acquisition methods, whereas the mean absolute difference, important for both visual and computer-aided signal analysis, was equal to 1.2 bpm. Such low differences do not affect the visual assessment of the FHR signal. However, in the indirect comparison the inconsistencies of several percent were noted. This mainly affects the acceleration (7.8%) and particularly deceleration (54%) patterns. In the signals acquired using the electrocardiography the obtained STV and LTV indices have shown significant overestimation by 10 and 50% respectively. It also turned out, that ability of clinical parameters to distinguish between normal and abnormal groups do not depend on the acquisition method. The obtained results prove that the abdominal FECG, considered as an alternative to the ultrasound approach, does not change the interpretation of the FHR signal, which was confirmed during both visual assessment and automated analysis.
人们对间接胎儿心电图(FECG)的应用寄予厚望,尤其是在孕期家庭远程监测方面。通过FECG确定胎儿心率(FHR)变异性时,所采用的标准与经典的通过超声多普勒法(US)获取FHR信号时相同。因此,必须在识别经典FHR模式(基线、加速/减速(A/D)、长期变异性(LTV))以及以逐搏精度评估FHR变异性(短期变异性(STV))方面,证实这两种方法的等效性。研究材料包括从60例生理孕期和复杂孕期患者收集的记录。使用基于US和FECG方法的两个胎儿和母体监测系统,对偶获取至少持续30分钟的FHR信号。记录被回顾性分为正常(41例)和异常(19例)胎儿结局。进行了复杂的数据同步和验证过程。所获得的低信号丢失水平(US法为4.5%,FECG法为1.8%)使得能够对FHR信号进行直接比较,以及通过使用临床相关参数进行间接比较。直接比较表明,采集方法之间不存在测量偏差,而对于视觉和计算机辅助信号分析都很重要的平均绝对差值等于1.2次/分钟。如此低的差异不会影响对FHR信号的视觉评估。然而,在间接比较中,发现了百分之几的不一致性。这主要影响加速模式(7.8%),尤其是减速模式(54%)。在使用心电图获取的信号中,所获得的STV和LTV指数分别显示出显著高估10%和50%。还发现,临床参数区分正常组和异常组的能力不取决于采集方法。所获得的结果证明,作为超声方法替代方案的腹部FECG,在视觉评估和自动分析过程中均得到证实,不会改变FHR信号的解读。