Liang Yiheng, Liu Ping, Yan Shaomei, Li Yun, Chen Duijin, Fan Shangrong
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518036, China.
Shenzhen Key Laboratory on Technology for Early Diagnosis of Major Gynecological Diseases, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518036, China.
Matern Fetal Med. 2021 Sep 23;4(2):113-120. doi: 10.1097/FM9.0000000000000127. eCollection 2022 Apr.
To investigate the efficacy of in-phase and quadrature (IQ) demodulation in electronic fetal heart rate monitoring (EFM) to reduce false reports of fetal heart rate (FHR) doubling or halving.
This is a prospective cohort study. A total of 263 full-term pregnant women who delivered at Peking University Shenzhen Hospital between August 2019 and July 2020 were prospectively enrolled in the study. FHR monitoring began when the cervix was dilated to 2-3 cm and continued until delivery. Raw fetal Doppler audio signals and internal and external cardiotocography curves from internal electrode monitoring, EFM with conventional demodulation (external), and EFM with IQ demodulation (external) were acquired to compare FHR doubling and halving time. In cohort 1, FHR was compared between IQ demodulation and conventional demodulation. In cohort 2, FHR was compared between IQ demodulation, conventional demodulation, and internal FHR monitoring. Count data were statistically analyzed using the Chi-squared test, and measurement data were statistically analyzed using -test for correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman analysis for concordance ranges.
To compare IQ demodulation and conventional demodulation, 225 pregnant women were monitored for a total of 835,870 seconds. The beat-to-beat interval of FHRs in raw fetal Doppler audio signals was used as the reference. The results showed a doubling time of 3401 seconds (0.407%, 3401/835,870) and a halving time of 2918 seconds (0.349%, 2918/835,870) with conventional demodulation, compared to 241 seconds (0.029%, 241/835,870) and 589 seconds (0.070%, 589/835,870), respectively, with IQ demodulation. IQ demodulation reduced FHR doubling by approximately 93% (3160/3401) and FHR halving by approximately 80% (2329/2918) compared to conventional demodulation ( < 0.01).To compare IQ demodulation, conventional demodulation, and internal FHR monitoring, 38 pregnant women were monitored for a total of 98,561 seconds. FHR from internal electrode monitoring was used as the reference. The results showed a doubling time of 238 seconds (0.241%, 238/98,561) and a halving time of 235 seconds 0.238%, 235/98,561) with conventional demodulation, compared with 30 seconds (0.030%, 30/98,561) and 81 seconds (0.082%, 81/98,561), respectively, with IQ demodulation ( < 0.05). No significant difference was observed in doubling or halving time between IQ demodulation and internal FHR monitoring ( > 0.05). IQ demodulation was more closely correlated with internal FHR monitoring than conventional demodulation (0.986 0.947). The Bland-Altman analysis showed that the concordance range of IQ demodulation internal FHR monitoring was significantly narrower than that of conventional demodulation internal FHR monitoring ((-5.32,6.01) (-10.87,11.46)).
EFM with IQ demodulation significantly reduces false FHR doubling and halving, with an efficacy similar to that of internal FHR monitoring.
探讨同相和正交(IQ)解调在电子胎儿心率监测(EFM)中减少胎儿心率(FHR)加倍或减半误报的效果。
这是一项前瞻性队列研究。2019年8月至2020年7月在北京大学深圳医院分娩的263名足月孕妇被前瞻性纳入研究。当宫颈扩张至2 - 3厘米时开始进行FHR监测,并持续至分娩。采集原始胎儿多普勒音频信号以及来自内部电极监测、采用传统解调的EFM(外部)和采用IQ解调的EFM(外部)的内、外产程图曲线,以比较FHR加倍和减半时间。在队列1中,比较IQ解调与传统解调的FHR。在队列2中,比较IQ解调、传统解调与内部FHR监测的FHR。计数资料采用卡方检验进行统计学分析,计量资料采用相关系数检验进行统计学分析,采用Bland - Altman分析评估一致性范围。
为比较IQ解调与传统解调,对225名孕妇进行了总计835870秒的监测。将原始胎儿多普勒音频信号中FHR的逐搏间期作为参考。结果显示,传统解调的FHR加倍时间为3401秒(0.407%,3401/835870),减半时间为2918秒(0.349%,2918/835870),而IQ解调的加倍时间分别为241秒(0.029%,241/835870),减半时间为589秒(0.070%,589/835870)。与传统解调相比,IQ解调使FHR加倍减少了约93%(3160/3401),FHR减半减少了约80%(2329/2918)(P < 0.01)。为比较IQ解调、传统解调与内部FHR监测,对38名孕妇进行了总计98561秒的监测。将内部电极监测的FHR作为参考。结果显示,传统解调的FHR加倍时间为238秒(0.241%,238/98561),减半时间为235秒(0.238%,235/98561),而IQ解调的加倍时间分别为30秒(0.030%,30/98561),减半时间为81秒(0.082%,81/98561)(P < 0.05)。IQ解调与内部FHR监测在加倍或减半时间上未观察到显著差异(P > 0.05)。IQ解调与内部FHR监测的相关性比传统解调更紧密(0.986对0.947)。Bland - Altman分析显示,IQ解调与内部FHR监测的一致性范围显著窄于传统解调与内部FHR监测的一致性范围((-5.32,6.01)对(-