Modified biophysical profile in antepartum fetal surveillance of high risk pregnancies

Sowmya, K; Mudanur, S. R.; R, Padmasri; Lalitha, S

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20171545

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nine of the cases (81.8 %) had aberrant rBPP scores, while two of the cases (18.2 %) had normal rBPP scores. Our findings were compared to those of Yogitha V et al [2] and Soumya et al [8] in previous research. Three (7.1 percent) of the 42 patients with a normal rBPP score had birth asphyxia, while 39 (92.9 percent) had no birth asphyxia.…”

Section: Correlation Of Study Outcomes With Rbppsupporting

confidence: 56%

“…The current study found that the incidence of abnormal study outcomes is higher than in previous studies (Table 6), and revealed that the incidence of abnormal study outcomes is linked to an abnormal rBPP score. [6] 8.8 ---Eden et al [7] 6.8 ---Nageotte et al [3] 5.6 ---Yogitha V et al [2] 30.1 100 88.8 -Soumya et al [8] The present study showed that scores of rapid Biophysical Profile have strong positive correlation with scores of biophysical profile (r 2 = 0.531, P=<0.001) and it was statistically significant. Similar results was reported by Prabhu AV et al [9] Sensitivity, specificity, Negative Predictive value and Positive predictive value was done between rBPP and BPP.…”

Section: Correlation Of Study Outcomes With Rbppsupporting

confidence: 48%

“…Miller et al [6] 36 ---Eden et al [7] 15.8 1.5 --Nageotte et al [3] 8.6 0.8 --Yogitha V et al [2] 30.1 66.7 44.89 -Soumya et al [8] 30.1 ---Singh et al [5] -…”

Section: Nicu Admissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparative study of rapid biophysical profile and conventional biophysical profile in predicting perinatal outcome in high risk pregnancies

Anupama¹,

Dwarakanath²,

Sh³

2021

Int. J. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Rapid Biophysical profile is quicker and easier to do than a full biophysical profile or a contraction stress test. Furthermore, the rBPP is regarded to be just as useful as a complete biophysical profile. Although the link between rBPP and BPP has been widely used, research is scarce. As a result, the current study looked into the relationship between the two tests, as well as their predictive ability in highrisk pregnancies. Material and Methods: 60 pregnant women with ≥ 32 weeks of singleton gestation, were randomly selected during their hospital visit. They were subjected to USG scan. NST AFI, fetal breathing, fetal tone, and fetal movement will be examined to complete the BPP test. After a 10-minute break, SPFM will be carried out by the same examiner to finish rBPP test. These results were compared with the perinatal outcome.Results: The present study showed that scores of rapid Biophysical Profile have strong positive correlation with scores of biophysical profile (r 2 = 0.531, P = <0.001) and it was statistically significant. The rapid/ modified biophysical profile test is 78% sensitive to Biophysical profile test, which means 78% times the function can identify the cases and classify correctly, as diseased cases with PPV of 61%. Conclusion:The statistically significant positive correlation between rBPP and BPP has been revealed. Due to its simplicity, rapidity, less expensive and no need for experience interpreter, the rBPP can be used as a primary screening antepartum fetal surveillance in the overcrowded obstetric center.

show abstract

Section: Correlation Of Study Outcomes With Rbppsupporting

confidence: 56%

Section: Correlation Of Study Outcomes With Rbppsupporting

confidence: 48%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative study of rapid biophysical profile and conventional biophysical profile in predicting perinatal outcome in high risk pregnancies

Anupama¹,

Dwarakanath²,

Sh³

2021

Int. J. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…11 In a study by Sowmya et al, majority of the cases had birth weight between 2.5-3.5kgs, followed by 30% of the babies whose birth weight was between 1.5-2.4kgs. 13 Only 4.6% of the new-borns had APGAR score of 7 or less than 7 in this study. Three new-borns in this study were admitted to the NICU.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 48%

Modified biophysical profile in high-risk pregnancy and its correlation with perinatal outcome

Kumari

Gandhi

Deora³

2023

Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Aim of the present study was to evaluate the perinatal outcome in high-risk pregnancy with modified biophysical profile (MBPP). Methods: The study is observational study,65 high risk pregnant women fulfilling the inclusion criteria participated in the study. The study subjects were subjected to MBPP. Then perinatal outcomes were assessed in view of mode of delivery, maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Results: Out of 65 cases, 78.5% had normal NST, 80% had normal AFI.3 neonates got admitted in NICU. 13 women underwent LSCS, 9 had instrumental delivery and rest delivered vaginally normal. Conclusions: The study showed that HRPs with MBPP abnormal or any of MBPP parameter abnormal have higher chances of perinatal morbidity and mortality.

show abstract

“…In the study of Nageotte et al 44% of cases had post-term, 11.8% of cases had hypertension, 23.8% of cases had IUGR, and 6.0% of cases had diabetes. 14 In a study by Eden et al (1988) 13 , 17.8% of cases had post-term, 27.9% of cases had hypertension, 16.6% of cases had IUGR, and 17.2% of cases had diabetes.…”

Section: Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Modified biophysical profile in high-risk pregnancy-association with neonatal APGAR score

Begum

Sruthi

Mamatha

et al. 2023

Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: MBPP is used for evaluating fetal health and predicting fetal outcomes, which can help to minimize perinatal morbidity and death. It combines the non-stress test, an indicator of acute fetal hypoxia, with AFI, the second indicator of persistent fetal problems. Each patient has a non-stress test and an ultrasonic examination of liquor volume. A non-stress test that is reactive will reveal a healthy fetus. Hence, an attempt has been made to study the MBPP in high-risk pregnancies in predicting fetal outcome. Methods: Hospital-based prospective clinical study on 200 high-risk pregnant women more than 37weeks of gestation are screened using a modified biophysical profile. High-risk factors in the study include Gestational Hypertension, Preeclampsia, IUGR, Post-term pregnancy, Oligohydramnios, PROM, and Anemia. The study was conducted in the department of obstetrics and gynaecology, Narayana medical college and hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh. Results: In the present study, a total of 200 patients, 76.0% had both (NST, AFI) normal, 5.0% had both (NST, AFI) abnormal, 10.0% had Normal in NST and abnormal in AFI, 9.0% had abnormal in NST, and normal in AFI. The individual association between NST and AFI with the neonatal outcomes ie., APGAR at 1 min and 5min have been studied and have been found to be statistically significant. Conclusions: In the present study, we concluded that MBPP is an effective antepartum fetal surveillance test in high-risk pregnancies in predicting perinatal outcome.

show abstract

Modified biophysical profile in antepartum fetal surveillance of high risk pregnancies

Cited by 5 publications

References 1 publication

Comparative study of rapid biophysical profile and conventional biophysical profile in predicting perinatal outcome in high risk pregnancies

Comparative study of rapid biophysical profile and conventional biophysical profile in predicting perinatal outcome in high risk pregnancies

Modified biophysical profile in high-risk pregnancy and its correlation with perinatal outcome

Modified biophysical profile in high-risk pregnancy-association with neonatal APGAR score

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About