The Fetal Biophysical Profile and Its Predictive Value

Vintzileos, Anthony M.; Campbell, Winston A.; Ingardia, Charles J.; Nochimson, David J.

doi:10.1097/00006250-198309000-00001

Cited by 189 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, MBPP is considered to be as effective as complete biophysical profile. 3 Hence in this study, modified biophysical profile is used as primary surveillance test in high risk pregnancy to study its effectiveness in predicting perinatal outcome.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modified biophysical profile in antepartum fetal surveillance of high risk pregnancies

Sowmya

Mudanur

et al. 2017

Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Fetal biophysical profile is a well-established method of antepartum surveillance in high risk pregnancy. Classical biophysical profile with all parameters (fetal breathing movements, fetal tone, fetal gross body movements, amniotic fluid volume and non-stress test) needs two phase testing by ultrasound and external Doppler monitor to record fetal heart rate, is more cumbersome, time consuming and expensive.Methods: This study was a prospective clinical study which consisted of 70 patients having pregnancy with high risk factors. The patients were evaluated with the modified biophysical profile consisting of NST recording for 20mins, followed ultrasound assessment of amniotic fluid volume, using four quadrant technique.Results: When the Modified biophysical profile is normal, it gives reassurance that the fetal status is good with good perinatal outcome. When the MBPP is abnormal there is increased incidence of perinatal morbidity as well as mortality.Conclusions: Modified biophysical profile is an effective primary antepartum fetal surveillance test in high risk pregnancies in predicting perinatal outcome.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modified biophysical profile in antepartum fetal surveillance of high risk pregnancies

Sowmya

Mudanur

et al. 2017

Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Each variable was given a score of 2, 1 or 0 using the scoring criteria as modified by Vintzileos et al [6] and shown in Table 2.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several authors [3][4][5][6][7] have shown the superiority of fetal biophysical profile (FBP) consisting basically of fetal heart rate reactivity (FR), fetal breathing movements (FBM), fetal movement (FM), fetal tone (FT), and qualitative amniotic fluid volume (AFV) as compared with any other single test in monitoring the fetus at risk. A score criteria whereby eight or more was considered normal while seven or less suggested a fetus at risk was used [3][4][5][6][7]. However, Vintzileos et al [8] expressed the use and misuse of the fetal biophysical profile and emphasized the value of the score components in order to reduce false positive and false negative rates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fetal Biophysical Profile Monitoring and Perinataloutcome

1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A prospective study of 109 high risk pregnancies on whom 279 fetal biophysical profile (FBP) examinations were performed showed positive and negative predictive values of 100% and 71.4%, respectively in the last FBP examination prior to delivery. The study confirmed other reports in the literature of a high correlation between normal examination and satisfactory perinatal outcome. The absence of perinatal mortality within one week of a normal FBP examination, which was also in agreement with other reported studies, reaffirms the reassuring nature of a normal examination. The high positive predictive value in our study may be due to several factors, including the use of a protocol which ensured standardization of the patient's condition prior to examination as well as repeat evaluations after non-reassuring tests. FBP evaluation is considered a simple, reliable and useful examination for the management of high risk pregnancies. Its main value would appear to be a reduction in the number of high risk pregnancy patients who would otherwise have been admitted on the basis of the clinical findings. D Makanjuola, EO Akande, T Malabarey, AA Al-Meshari, Fetal Biophysical Profile Monitoring and Perinataloutcome. 1992; 12(3): 241-246 Fetal asphyxia causes approximately half of stillbirth [1][2][3][4] and often manifest with intrauterine growth retardation. It also contributes significantly to perinatal mortality and morbidity. Therefore, the recognition and monitoring of the fetus at risk cannot be over emphasized.With the advent of static and realtime ultrasonography the evaluation of the fetus progressed from the mere acquisition of the fetal age to detection of fetal anomalies and subsequently to a direct physical examination of the fetus-fetal biophysical profile (FBP). Several authors [3][4][5][6][7] have shown the superiority of fetal biophysical profile (FBP) consisting basically of fetal heart rate reactivity (FR), fetal breathing movements (FBM), fetal movement (FM), fetal tone (FT), and qualitative amniotic fluid volume (AFV) as compared with any other single test in monitoring the fetus at risk. A score criteria whereby eight or more was considered normal while seven or less suggested a fetus at risk was used [3][4][5][6][7]. However, Vintzileos et al [8] expressed the use and misuse of the fetal biophysical profile and emphasized the value of the score components in order to reduce false positive and false negative rates. Manning et al [9] in a recent communication also demonstrated the inequality of the various score components and showed that predictive accuracy is related to score composition.We wish to report our experience on a prospective study on 109 consecutive high risk pregnancies in which the results of the FBP are compared with the perinatal outcome as judged by the presence or absence of fetal distress in labor, neonatal one minute Apgar score and perinatal mortality. We do not have any report of such work done in this environment as of now.

show abstract

“…However, when the NST is nonreactive and the BPP score is not reassuring, they both have high incidences of false-positives (approximately 50% for NST and high false-positive rates for each component of BPP). 26 Notably, the studies cited by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and by this paper in the use of fetal testing are all underpowered, limiting true comparison of the two testing formats. Nonetheless, both tests are often used interchangeably, as there are no data existing to show one test to be superior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Choice of antenatal testing significantly effects a patient's work obligations

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: We sought to compare two approaches to antenatal testing for their impact on the workforce.Study Design: This is a prospective observational study of women who presented for antenatal testing. All women were given a survey upon presentation. As per hospital protocol, nonstress testing (NST) was performed semiweekly and biophysical profile (BPP) was performed weekly. The choice of testing was determined by the attending physician. w 2 -and Student's t-tests were performed where appropriate. A P-value of <0.05 was considered significant.Result: A total of 195 women were surveyed. Among them, 94 women had an NST and 101 had a BPP. Overall, 59.2% were multiparous, 33.1% had to arrange for child care and 97.2% felt reassured by the testing. There were no differences in demographic characteristics, education, type of insurance or employment status between the groups. Women who had NSTs were more likely to lose time from work than those who had BPPs (218.4 versus 68.9 min; P<0.001). Of the women who had semiweekly NSTs, 80.6% would have preferred weekly testing. If the 94 women who received semiweekly testing had weekly testing, a total of 534.4 h would have been available for the workforce.Conclusion: Twice-weekly NST results in a significant increase in time lost from the workforce compared with weekly BPP.

show abstract

The Fetal Biophysical Profile and Its Predictive Value

Cited by 189 publications

References 0 publications

Modified biophysical profile in antepartum fetal surveillance of high risk pregnancies

Modified biophysical profile in antepartum fetal surveillance of high risk pregnancies

Fetal Biophysical Profile Monitoring and Perinataloutcome

Choice of antenatal testing significantly effects a patient's work obligations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About