Suppr超能文献

胎儿心电图经腹监测产妇运动时胎儿心率的质量:一项前瞻性研究。

Quality of fetal heart rate monitoring with transabdominal fetal ECG during maternal movement in labor: A prospective study.

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical School - Santa Maria University Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal.

Medical School - Santa Maria University Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal.

出版信息

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022 Nov;101(11):1269-1275. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14434. Epub 2022 Aug 12.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Transabdominal electrocardiographic (TAfECG) acquisition of fetal heart rate (FHR) signals has recently been introduced into leading commercial cardiotocographic (CTG) monitors. Continuous wireless transmission of signals has raised the possibility of the technology being used during maternal mobilization in labor. This study aims to evaluate signal quality and accuracy of TAfECG acquisition of FHR signals during static and active maternal positions in labor when compared with Doppler signals and with the gold-standard method of fetal scalp electrode (FSE).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 76 women with singleton term pregnancies in the active first stage of labor had simultaneously acquired FHR with TAfECG, Doppler, and FSE. Participants were asked to complete a supervised mobilization scheme, comprising five sequential 10-min periods of lying down, standing, sitting, walking, and rocking on the birthing ball. The three FHR signals were compared, defining signal loss as the percentage of signals under 20 bpm or exceeding 250 bpm and accuracy as the difference with FSE values. Computer analysis was used to quantify variability, accelerations, and decelerations. Static labor positions (lying down, standing, and sitting) were compared with active labor positions (walking and rocking on the birthing ball).

RESULTS

Average signal loss was 5.3% with TAfECG (3.2% in static and 7.4% in active positions) and 15.5% with Doppler (8.3% in static and 30.7% in active positions). Average accuracy was 3.5 bpm with TAfECG (1.9 bpm in static and 5.04 bpm in active positions) and 13.9 bpm with Doppler (3.2 bpm in static and 24.7 bpm in active positions). Average variability was similar with TAfECG and FSE in static positions but significantly higher with TAfECG in active positions (23.6 vs. 13.5 bpm, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In static labor positions, TAfECG provides a low signal loss, similar to that obtained with FSE, and a good signal accuracy, so the technique can be considered reliable when the mother is lying down, standing, or sitting. During maternal movement, TAfECG causes an artificial increase in FHR variability, which can cause false reassurance regarding fetal oxygenation. Doppler signals are unreliable during maternal movements.

摘要

简介

经腹心电图(TAfECG)获取胎儿心率(FHR)信号最近已被引入到领先的商业胎心监护(CTG)监测器中。信号的连续无线传输提高了该技术在产妇分娩时活动时使用的可能性。本研究旨在评估 TAfECG 在分娩时的静态和主动体位下获取 FHR 信号的信号质量和准确性,并与多普勒信号和胎儿头皮电极(FSE)的金标准方法进行比较。

材料和方法

共有 76 名单胎足月产妇在活跃的第一产程中同时使用 TAfECG、多普勒和 FSE 采集 FHR。要求参与者完成一项有监督的活动方案,包括 5 个连续 10 分钟的卧位、站立位、坐位、行走位和分娩球上的摇摆位。比较了三种 FHR 信号,将信号丢失定义为低于 20 bpm 或超过 250 bpm 的信号百分比,将准确性定义为与 FSE 值的差异。使用计算机分析来量化变异性、加速和减速。将静态分娩体位(卧位、站立位和坐位)与主动分娩体位(行走位和分娩球上的摇摆位)进行比较。

结果

TAfECG 的平均信号丢失率为 5.3%(静态为 3.2%,主动为 7.4%),多普勒为 15.5%(静态为 8.3%,主动为 30.7%)。TAfECG 的平均准确性为 3.5 bpm(静态为 1.9 bpm,主动为 5.04 bpm),多普勒为 13.9 bpm(静态为 3.2 bpm,主动为 24.7 bpm)。在静态位置,TAfECG 和 FSE 的平均变异性相似,但在主动位置,TAfECG 的变异性明显更高(23.6 与 13.5 bpm,p < 0.001)。

结论

在静态分娩体位下,TAfECG 信号丢失率低,与 FSE 相似,信号准确性好,因此当产妇卧位、站立或坐立时,该技术是可靠的。在产妇运动期间,TAfECG 会导致 FHR 变异性的人为增加,这可能会导致对胎儿氧合的错误保证。多普勒信号在产妇运动时不可靠。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c7b6/9812089/a749501a9be2/AOGS-101-1269-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验