Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile with Doppler Ultrasonographic Analysis in Determining Fetal well Being in the Third Trimester

Bakay, Kadir; VAROLAN, Ahmet; DAVAS, İnci; YAZGAN, Ali; AKYOL, Atıf

Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile with Doppler Ultrasonographic Analysis in Determining Fetal well Being in the Third Trimester

Kadir BAKAY, (Şişli Etfal Research and Education Hospital Gynecology and Obstetrics 2 nd Clinic, İstanbul)

Ahmet VAROLAN, (Şişli Etfal Research and Education Hospital Gynecology and Obstetrics 2 nd Clinic, İstanbul)

Ali YAZGAN, (Şişli Etfal Research and Education Hospital Gynecology and Obstetrics 2 nd Clinic, İstanbul)

Atıf AKYOL, (Şişli Etfal Research and Education Hospital Gynecology and Obstetrics 2 nd Clinic, İstanbul)

İnci DAVAS (Şişli Etfal Research and Education Hospital Gynecology and Obstetrics 2 nd Clinic, İstanbul)

GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine

1 0

Yıl: 2013 Cilt: 19 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 201319267 - 201319275 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile with Doppler Ultrasonographic Analysis in Determining Fetal well Being in the Third Trimester

Öz:

Bu çalışmada üçüncü trimesterde fetal iyilik halinin öngörülmesinde modifiye biyofizik profil ve Doppler ultrasonografibulgularını karşılaştırmayı amaçladık.GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: Çalışmamız Aralık 2009 ve Mart 2010ayları arasında doğum için kliniğimize yatırılan 36 haftadan bü-yük 99 gebe üzerinde yapıldı. Çalışmaya alınan tüm gebelerebiyofizik skorlama ve Doppler ultrasonografi yapıldı. Doğumutakiben pediatrist tarafından doğum ağırlığı, 1. ve 5. dakika APGARdeğerleri not edildi. Yeni doğan yoğun bakım ünitesinealı nan tüm bebeklerin prognozu yakından takip edildi. Peri na -tal sonuçların öngörülmesinde modifiye biyofizik profil ve Dop -pler ultrasonografi bulgularının etkinliği; yenidoğanlarda fetaldistress, mekonyum varlığı, yeni doğan yoğun bakım ünitesinealınma ve 5. dakika APGAR skorlarına göre değerlendirildi.BULGULAR: Çalışmamız Aralık 2009 ve Mart 2010 ayları arasındadoğum için kliniğimize yatırılan 36 haftadan büyük 18-40yaşları arasında 99 gönüllü gebe üzerinde yapıldı. Hastalarınortalama yaşı 23.30 ±4.91, gravidası 1 ve 5 arasında ortalaması2 ve paritesi 0 ile 2 arasında ortalaması 1 idi. Yeni doğan -ların ağırlık ölçüleri 2680g ile 3900g arasında değişmekte veortalaması 3192.22±277.42 idi. 20 hasta (%20.2) sezaryen ile,kalan 79 hasta ise (%79.8) vajinal yolla doğurtuldu.SONUÇ: Perinatal sonuçların öngörülmesinde ve fetal distresitahmin etmede modifiye biofizik profil, Doppler ultrasonografidendaha değerli bulundu. Fakat modifiye biyofizik profil veDoppler ultrasonografinin kombinasyonunun daha yüksek sensitiviteyesahip olduğu gözlendi. Sonuç olarak fetal distresin etkinbir biçimde öngörülmesinde ve bunun güvenilir bir taramatesti olarak kullanılmasında modifiye biyofizik profil ve Dopplerultrasonografi kombinasyonu çalışmamızda en etkin yöntemolarak gözlendi.

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum

Fetal İyilik Hali Öngörüsünde Modifiye Biyofizik Profil ve Üçüncü Trimester Doppler Ultrasonografi Bulgularının Karşılaştırılması

Öz:

OBJECTIVES: In this study we aim to compare modified biophysical profile with Doppler ultrasonographicanalysis in determining fetal well being in the third trimester.STUDY DESIGN: Our research is based on 99 voluntary pregnant patients ahead of 36 weeks who admittedto our hospital for labor between December 2009 and March 2010. Doppler ultrasonography andbiophysical scoring were applied to all patients admitted to the study group. Following delivery, birthweight and APGAR scores of the 1st and 5th minute were noted down by the pediatrician. Prognosis andsurvey of all newborns admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit after delivery were closely monitored.The effectiveness of modified biophysical profile and obstetric Doppler analysis in determining theperinatal outcome was based on the evaluation of certain parameters such as; fetal distress, presenceof meconium, admittance to NICU and APGAR score of the 5th minute.RESULTS: Our research is based on 99 voluntary pregnant patients between 18 and 40 years old andwho are ahead of 36 weeks that were admitted to our hospital for labor between December 2009 andMarch 2010. Patients' median age was 23.30±4.91, gravida changing between 1 and 5 with a medianof 2 and parity changing between 0 and 2 with a median of 1. Birth weight measurements varied from2680g to 3900g with a median of 3192.22±277.42 grams. Caesarean section was performed on 20 patients(20.2%). The remaining 79 (79.8%) were delivered vaginallyCONCLUSION: Modified biophysical profile was found to be a more reliable tool than Doppler analysisin determining perinatal outcome and in prediction of acute fetal distress. But combining modified biophysicalprofile with Doppler analysis has yielded a higher sensitivity aiding in the diagnosis of perinataloutcome and acute fetal distress. In conclusion, in order to effectively predict acute fetal distress and tomaintain a reliable screening method, combined use of these tests, namely modified biophysical profileand umbilical artery Doppler analysis, has proven to be the most valuable and effective method asshown in our study.

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Satamura S:Ultrasonic Doppler Method for the inspection of cardiac functions. J Acoust Soc Am 1957;29:1181-3
2. Manning FA, Platt LD, Sipos L. Antepartum fetal evaluation: Development of a fetal biophysical profile. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980;136:787
3. Dayal AK, Manning FA, Berck DJ, Mussalli GM, Avila C, Harman CR. Fetal death after normal biophysical profile score: An eighteen-year experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:1231-6.
4. Rutherford SE, Phelan PJ, Smith CV, Jacobs N. The fourquadrant assessment of amniotic fluid volume: An adjunct to antepartum fetal heart rate testing. Obstet Gynecol 1987;70:353
5. Clare G. Department Of Fetomaternal Medicine Drictrote Of Obstetrics and Gynnaecology, Queen Medical Centre Volume 18 Issue 3 June 2004
6. Fleischer A, Anyaegbunam AA, Schulman H, Farmakides G, Randolph G. Uterine and umbilical artery velocimetry during normal labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;157:40-3
7. Stuart B, Drumm J, FitzGerald DE, Duignan NM: Fetal blood velocity waveforms in uncomplicated labour. Brit J Obstet Gynaecol 1981;88:865-9
8. Thacker S. B. and Berkelman R. L. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of selected antepartum fetal surveillance techniques. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 1986;41:121-41.
9. Keith P Williams, MD, 333 Cedar St/PO Box 208063, New Haven, CT 06520-8063. 2003, Mosby
10. Yücel A. Yılmazer M. Acar M. Termde Normal Gebelerde Doppler İndeksleri ve Non- Stres Test Değerlerinin Fetüs cinsiyetine Göre Karşılaştırılması. Kocatepe Tıp Dergisi Mayıs 2005
11. Krebs HB, Petres RE, Dunn LJ, Smith PJ. Intrapartum fetal heart ratemonitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 142:297
12. Sarno PA, Ahn MO, Phelan JP, Paul RH. Fetal acoustic stimulation in the early intrapar-tum period as a predictor of subsequent fetal condition. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:762
13. Visser G. H. A. Sadovsky G. and Nicolaides K. H. Antepartum heart rate patterns in small for gestational age third trimester fetuses: correlations with blood gas values obtained at cordosentesis. American Journal af Obstetrics and Gynecology 1990;162:698-703.
14. Hüseyinoğlu N Çalışkan E. Türköz E. Umblikal Arter S/D Oranı Yüksekliğinin intrapartum ve Postpartum Fetal Sonuçları Tahmin Etmedeki Yeri. T Klin J Gynecol Obst 2005;15:180-6
15. Neilson. IP, Cardiotocography for antepartum fcl. Al assessment (revised) 2 May 1994. In: Kcirse MJNC, Renhew flU. Neilson. JP, CrolVther C. ediıors. Pregnancy and dildbirth moduk: Codtrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database; Cochrne Callaboration, Issne 2. Oxford: Update Software; 1994.
16. Baron C. Morgan MA. Garite TJ. The Impact of amniotic fluid volume assesed intrapartum and perinatal outcome. Am J Obst Gyn 1995;173:167-74
17. Feinkind L. Abulafia O, Delke I. Feldman J. Minkoff H. Screening with doppler velocimetry in labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161:765
18. Fairlie FM. Lang GD. Sheldon CD. Umbilical artery flow velocity waveforms in labour. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 96:151
19. Sarno AP. Ahn MO. Brar HS. Phelan JP. Platt LD. Intrapartum doppler velocimetry, amniotic fluid volume, and fetal heart rate as predictors of subsequent fetal distres. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161:1508-14
20. Devoe LD, Gardner P, Dear C, Castillo R. The diagnostic values of concurrent non-stres testing, amniotic fluid measurement, and doppler velocimetry in screening a general high-risk population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 163:1040-8
21. Berkowitz GS. Mehalek KE. Chitkara U, Rosenberg J. Cogswell C. Berkowitz RL. Doppler umbilical velocimetry in the prediction of adverse outcome in pregnancies at risk for intrauterin growth retardation. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:742-6
22. Brar HS. Medearis AL. DeVore GR. Platt LD. A comparative study of fetal umbilical velocimetry with continuous-and pulsed-wave doppler ultrasonography in high risk pregnancies: relationchip to outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;160:375-8
23. Rognerud Jensen OH. Guimaraes MS. Prediction of fetal outcome by doppler examination and by the non-stres test. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1991;70:271-4
24. Vintzileos AM, Campbell WA, Rodis JF, McLean DA. The relationship fetal biophysical assessment, umbilical artery velocimetry, and fetal acidosis. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:622
25. Brar HS, Platt LD, DeVore GR, Horenstein J, Medearis AL. Qualitative assessment of maternal uterine and fetal umbilical artery blood flow and resistance in laboring patients by doppler velocimetry. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 158:952-6
26. Turan S. Turan OM. Berg C. Moyano D. Bhide A, Bower S, Thilaganathan B, Gembruch U, Nicolaides K, Harman C, Baschat AA. Computerized fetal heart rate analysis, Doppler ultrasound and biophysical profile score in the prediction of acid-base status of growth-restricted fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;30:750-6
27. Baschat AA, Galan HL, Bhide A, Berg C, Kush ML, Oepkes D et al. Doppler and biophysical assessment in growth restricted fetuses: distribution of test results. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;27:41-7.

APA	Bakay K, VAROLAN A, YAZGAN A, AKYOL A, DAVAS İ (2013). Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile with Doppler Ultrasonographic Analysis in Determining Fetal well Being in the Third Trimester. , 201319267 - 201319275.
Chicago	Bakay Kadir,VAROLAN Ahmet,YAZGAN Ali,AKYOL Atıf,DAVAS İnci Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile with Doppler Ultrasonographic Analysis in Determining Fetal well Being in the Third Trimester. (2013): 201319267 - 201319275.
MLA	Bakay Kadir,VAROLAN Ahmet,YAZGAN Ali,AKYOL Atıf,DAVAS İnci Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile with Doppler Ultrasonographic Analysis in Determining Fetal well Being in the Third Trimester. , 2013, ss.201319267 - 201319275.
AMA	Bakay K,VAROLAN A,YAZGAN A,AKYOL A,DAVAS İ Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile with Doppler Ultrasonographic Analysis in Determining Fetal well Being in the Third Trimester. . 2013; 201319267 - 201319275.
Vancouver	Bakay K,VAROLAN A,YAZGAN A,AKYOL A,DAVAS İ Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile with Doppler Ultrasonographic Analysis in Determining Fetal well Being in the Third Trimester. . 2013; 201319267 - 201319275.
IEEE	Bakay K,VAROLAN A,YAZGAN A,AKYOL A,DAVAS İ "Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile with Doppler Ultrasonographic Analysis in Determining Fetal well Being in the Third Trimester." , ss.201319267 - 201319275, 2013.
ISNAD	Bakay, Kadir vd. "Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile with Doppler Ultrasonographic Analysis in Determining Fetal well Being in the Third Trimester". (2013), 201319267-201319275.

APA	Bakay K, VAROLAN A, YAZGAN A, AKYOL A, DAVAS İ (2013). Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile with Doppler Ultrasonographic Analysis in Determining Fetal well Being in the Third Trimester. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, 19(2), 201319267 - 201319275.
Chicago	Bakay Kadir,VAROLAN Ahmet,YAZGAN Ali,AKYOL Atıf,DAVAS İnci Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile with Doppler Ultrasonographic Analysis in Determining Fetal well Being in the Third Trimester. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine 19, no.2 (2013): 201319267 - 201319275.
MLA	Bakay Kadir,VAROLAN Ahmet,YAZGAN Ali,AKYOL Atıf,DAVAS İnci Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile with Doppler Ultrasonographic Analysis in Determining Fetal well Being in the Third Trimester. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, vol.19, no.2, 2013, ss.201319267 - 201319275.
AMA	Bakay K,VAROLAN A,YAZGAN A,AKYOL A,DAVAS İ Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile with Doppler Ultrasonographic Analysis in Determining Fetal well Being in the Third Trimester. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine. 2013; 19(2): 201319267 - 201319275.
Vancouver	Bakay K,VAROLAN A,YAZGAN A,AKYOL A,DAVAS İ Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile with Doppler Ultrasonographic Analysis in Determining Fetal well Being in the Third Trimester. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine. 2013; 19(2): 201319267 - 201319275.
IEEE	Bakay K,VAROLAN A,YAZGAN A,AKYOL A,DAVAS İ "Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile with Doppler Ultrasonographic Analysis in Determining Fetal well Being in the Third Trimester." GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, 19, ss.201319267 - 201319275, 2013.
ISNAD	Bakay, Kadir vd. "Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile with Doppler Ultrasonographic Analysis in Determining Fetal well Being in the Third Trimester". GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine 19/2 (2013), 201319267-201319275.