Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T14:48:34.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antenatal detection of fetal compromise

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

Steven E Ambrose Junior Fellow  and
Roy H Petrie
Steven E Ambrose Junior Fellow*
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA
Roy H Petrie
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA
*
Dr Steven E Ambrose, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, 4911 Barnes Hospital Plaza, St Louis, Missouri 63110, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The fetus has become increasingly accessible and visible as a patient over the last two decades. Two major technical advances have contributed to the obstetrician's ability to study and understand the fetus. The first advance was electronic fetal heart-rate monitoring, followed by the second major advancement in the form of real time ultrasound. Prior to the introduction of these technologies, biochemical determiniations of oestriol and human placental lactogen were used to monitor fetal wellbeing. Currently the emphasis, both in clinical practice and research protocols, is on biophysical surveillance of the fetus.

Type
Articles
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 27 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Vintzileos, AM, Campbell, WA, Nochimson, DJ et al. The fetal biophysical profile in patients with premature rupture of membranes–an early predictor of fetal infection.Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 152: 510–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Vintzileos, AM, Campbell, WA, Nochimson, DJ, Weinbaum, PJ.Fetal breathing as a predictor of infection in premature rupture of membranes. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 67: 813–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Goldstein, I, Romero, R, Merril, S et al. Fetal body and breathing movements as predictors of intraamniotic infection in preterm premature rupture of membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 159: 363–68.Google Scholar
4Thacker, SB, Berkelman, RL.Assessing the diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of selected antepartum fetal surveillance techniques. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 1986; 41: 121–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Brown, VA, Sawers, RS, Parsons, RJ et al. The value of antenatal cardiotocography in the management of high risk pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1982; 89: 716.Google Scholar
6Flynn, AM, Kelly, J, Mansfield, H et al. A randomized controlled trial of nonstress antepartum cardiotocography. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1982; 89: 427.Google Scholar
7Lumley, LA, Anderson, I, Renon, P, Wood, C.A randomized trial of weekly cardiotocography in high-risk obstetric patients. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1983; 90:1018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Boehm, FH, Salyer, S, Shah, DM, Vaughn, WK.Improved outcome of twice weekly nonstress testing. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 67: 566–68.Google ScholarPubMed
9Schneider, EP, Hutson, JM, Petrie, RH.An assessment of the first decade's experience with antepartum fetal heart rate testing. American Journal of Perinatology 1988; 5: 134–41.Google Scholar
10Petrie, RH. Antepartum surveillance of fetal well-being. In: Rathi, M ed, Clinical aspects of perinatal medicine, Volume 2. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1986:46–59Google Scholar
11Farahani, G, Vasudeva, K, Petrie, RH, Fenton, AN.Oxytocin challenge test in high risk pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1976; 47: 159–62.Google Scholar
12Nochimson, DJ, Turbeville, JS, Terry, JE, Petrie, RH, Lundy, L.The nonstress test. Obstet Gynecol 1978; 51: 419–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Devoe, LD, McKenzie, J, Searle, NS, Sherline, DM.Clinical sequelae of the extended nonstress test. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 1974–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Brown, R, Patrick, J.The nonstress test: how long is enough? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 141: 646.Google Scholar
15Druzin, ML, Foodim, J.Effect of maternal glucose ingestion compared with maternal water ingestion of the nonstress test. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 67: 425–26.Google ScholarPubMed
16Druzin, ML, Gratacos, J, Paul, RH et al. Antepartum fetal heart rate testing: XII. The effect of manual manipulation of the fetus on the nonstress test. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 61–64.Google Scholar
17Polishuk, WZ, Laufer, N, Sadovsky, E.Fetal response to external light stimulus. Harefuah 1975; 89: 395.Google Scholar
18Read, JA, Miller, FC.Fetal heart rate acceleration in response to acoustic stimulation as a measure of fetal well-being. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1977; 129: 152.Google Scholar
19Trudinger, B, Boylan, P.Antepartum fetal heart rate monitoring: Value of sound stimulation. Obstet Gynecol 1980; 55:265–67.Google Scholar
20Smith, CV, Phelan, JP, Platt, LD, Broussard, P, Paul, H.Fetal acoustic stimulation testing. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 155: 131–34.Google Scholar
21Smith, CV, Nguyen, HN, Phelan, JP, Paul, RH.Intrapartum assessment of fetal well-being: A comparison of fetal acoustic stimulation with acid-base determinations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 155: 726–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Polzin, GB, Blakemore, KJ, Petrie, RH, Amon, E.Fetal vibro-acoustic stimulation: Magnitude and duration of fetal heart rate accelerations as a marker of fetal health. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 72: 6212013;26.Google ScholarPubMed
23Ohel, G, Birkenfeld, A, Rabinowitz, , Sadovsky, E. Fetal response to vibratory acoustic stimulation in periods of low heart rate reactivity and low activity.Google Scholar
24Anyaegbunam, A, Brustman, L, Divon, M, Langer, O.The significance of antepartum variable decelerations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 155: 707–10.Google Scholar
25Playfair, WS.A treatise on the science and practice of midwifery. Philadelphia: Lea Brothers, 1889: 458.Google Scholar
26Patrick, J, Campbell, K, Carmichael, L, Natale, R, Richardson, B.Patterns of gross fetal body movements over 24-hour observation intervals during the last 10 weeks of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 142: 363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Rayburn, WF.Clinical significance of perceptible fetal motion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 138: 210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Sadovsky, E, Weinstein, D, Even, Y.Antepartum fetal evaluation by assessment of fetal heart rate and fetal movements. Int J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 19: 21.Google Scholar
29Rayburn, W, Zuspan, F, Motley, ME, Donaldson, M.An alternative to antepartum fetal heart rate testing. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 138: 223.Google Scholar
30Manning, FA, Morrison, I, Lange, IR, Harman, CR, Chamberlain, PFC.Fetal biophysical profile scoring: Selective use of the nonstress test. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 156:709–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Manning, FA, Platt, LD, Sipos, L.Antepartum fetal evaluation: Development of a fetal biophysical profile. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 136: 787.Google Scholar
32Manning, FA, Morrison, I, Lange, IR, Harman, CR, Chamberlain, PF.Fetal assessment based on fetal biophysical profile scoring: Experience in 12,620 referred high-risk pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 343–50.Google Scholar
33Vintzileos, AM, Campbell, WA, Nochimson, D J, Weinbaum, PJ.The use and misuse of the fetal biophysical profile. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 156: 527–33.Google Scholar
34Vintzileos, AM, Campbell, WA, Ingardia, CJ et al. The biophysical profile and its predictive value. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 62: 271.Google Scholar
35Vintzileos, AM, Campbell, WA, Nochimson, DJ et al. The use of real-time scanning in antepartum fetal evaluation: The fetal biophysical profile. In: Sanders, RC, Hill, MC eds, Ultrasound annual New York: Raven Press, 1985: 251.Google Scholar
36Platt, LD, Walla, CA, Paul, RH, Trujillo, ME, Loesser, CV, Jacobs, ND, Broussard, PM.A prospective trial of the fetal biophysical profile versus the nonstress test in the management of high-risk pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 153: 624–33.Google Scholar
37Chamberlain, PF, Manning, FA, Morrison, I et al. Ultrasound evaluation of amniotic fluid volume: I. The relationship of marginal and decreased amniotic fluid volumes to perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 150: 245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38Phelan, JP, Smith, CV, Broussard, P, Small, M.Amniotic fluid volume assessment with the four-quadrant technique at 36–42 weeks' gestation. J Reprod Med 1987; 32: 540.Google ScholarPubMed
39Rutherford, SE, Phelan, JP, Smith, CV, Jacobs, N.The four-quadrant assessment of amniotic fluid volume: An adjunct to antepartum fetal heart rate testing. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 353.Google ScholarPubMed
40Grannum, PAT, Berkowitz, RL, Hobbins, JC.The ultrasonic changes in the maturing placenta and their relation to fetal pulmonic maturity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979; 133:915.Google Scholar
41Hill, LM, Breckle, R, Ragozzino, MW, Wolfgram, KR, O'Brien, PC.Grade 3 placentation: Incidence and neonatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 61: 728.Google Scholar
42Kazzi, GM, Gross, TL, Sokol, RJ, Kazzi, NJ.Detection of intrauterine growth retardation: A new use for sonographic placental grading. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983; 145: 733.Google Scholar
43Petrucha, RA, Golde, SH, Platt, LD.Real-time ultrasound of the placenta in assessment of fetal pulmonary maturity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 142: 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44Gill, RW, Kossoff, G, Warren, PS et al. Umbilical venous flow in normal and complicated pregnancy. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 1984; 10: 349–63.Google Scholar
45Fleischer, A, Schulman, H, Farmakides, G, Bracero, L, Blattner, P, Randolph, G.Umbilical artery velocity waveforms and intrauterine growth retardation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 502–505.Google Scholar
46McCowan, LM, Erskine, LA, Ritchie, K.Umbilical artery Doppler blood flow studies in the preterm, small for gestation age fetus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 156: 655–59.Google Scholar
47Ducey, J, Schulman, H, Farmakides, G et al. A classification of hypertension in pregnancy based on Doppler velocimetry. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 680–85.Google Scholar
48Rochelson, BL, Schulman, H, Fleischer, A et al. The clinical significance of Doppler umbilical artery velocimetry in the small for gestational age fetus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 156: 1223–26.Google Scholar
49Giles, WB, Lingman, G, Marsel, K et al. Fetal volume blood flow and umbilical artery flow velocity waveform analysis: A comparison. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 461.Google Scholar
50Mehalek, KE, Berkowitz, GS, Chitkara, U, Rosenberg, J, Berkowitz, RL.Comparison of continuous-wave and pulsed Dopler S/D ratios of umbilical and uterine arteries. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 72: 603.Google Scholar
51Brar, HS, Medearis, AL, DeVore, GR, Platt, LD.Fetal umbilical velocimetry using continuous-wave and pulsed-wave Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies: A comparison of systolic to diastolic ratios. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 72: 607.Google ScholarPubMed
52Dawes, GS. The umbilical circulation. In: Foetal and neonatal physiology Year Book Medical, Chicago: 1968: 66–78.Google Scholar
53Thompson, RS, Trudinger, B J, Cook, CM et al. Doppler ultrasound waveform indices: A/B ratio, pulsatility index, and pourcelot ratio. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1988; 95: 555–58.Google Scholar
54Divon, MY, Guidetti, D, Braverman, JI, Oberlander, E, Langer, O, Merkatz, IR.Intrauterine growth retardation – a prospective study of the diagnostic value of real-time sonography combined with umbilical artery flow velocimetry. Obstet Gynaecol 1988; 72: 611.Google Scholar
55Rochelson, B, Schulman, H, Farmakides, G et al. The significance of absent end-diastolic velocity in umbilical artery velocity waveforms. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 156: 1213–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56Trudinger, BJ, Cook, CM.Umbilical and uterine artery flow velocity waveforms in pregnancy associated with major fetal abnormality. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 92: 666–70.Google Scholar
57Trudinger, BJ, Cook, CM, Jones, L, Giles, WB.A comparison of fetal heart rate monitoring and umbilical artery waveforms in the recognition of fetal compromise. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 171–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58Bracero, L, Schulman, H, Fleischer, A, Farmakides, G, Rochelson, B.Umbilical artery velocimetry in diabetes and pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 68: 654.Google Scholar
59Giles, WB, Lingman, G, Marsal, K, Trudinger, BJ.Fetal volume blood flow and umbilical artery flow velocity waveform analysis: a comparison. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 461–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60Daffos, F, Capello-Pavlovsky, M, Forestier, F.Fetal blood sampling during pregnancy with use of needle guided by ultrasound: A study of 606 consecutive cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 153: 655.Google Scholar
61Cox, WL, Daffos, F, Forestier, F et al. Physiology and management of intrauterine growth retardation: A biologic approach with fetal blood sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 159: 36–41.Google Scholar
62Benacerraf, BR, Barss, VA, Saltzman, DH, Greene, MF, Penso, CA, Frigoletto, FD.Acute fetal distress associated with percutaneous umbilical blood sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 156: 1218–20.Google Scholar
63Weiner, CP.Cordocentesis for diagnostic indications: Two years experience. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 664.Google ScholarPubMed
64Hobbins, JC, Grannum, PA, Romero, R et al. Percutaneous umbilical cord sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 152: 1.Google Scholar
65Amon, E, Dacus, JV, Mabie, BC, Emerson, DS.Ultrasonically guided direct umbilical cord blood sampling. J Reprod Med 1987; 32: 851.Google Scholar
66Nicolaides, KH, Rodeck, CH, Soothill, PW, Campbell, S.Ultrasound-guided sampling of umbilical cord and placental blood to assess fetal wellbeing. Lancet 1986; 1: 1065.Google Scholar
67Nicolaides, KH, Bradley, RJ, Soothill, PWCampbell, S, Bilardo, CM, Gibb, D.Maternal oxygen therapy for intrauterine growth retardation. Lancet 1987; 1: 942.Google Scholar
68Baxi, LV, Petrie, RH, James, LS.Human fetal oxygenation (tcPO2), heart rate variability and uterine activity following maternal administration of meperidine. J Perinat Med 1988; 16: 23.Google Scholar
69Bergmans, MGM, van Geijn, HP, van Kessel, H, Puyenbrock, JI, Arts, NF.Measurement and processing of fetal transcutaneous PCO2 levels. J Perinat Med 1987; 15: 369.Google Scholar
70Schmidt, SCH, Saling, EZ.The continuous measurement of transcutaneous carbon dioxide tension (TcPCO2), an atraumatic tool to verify fetal acidosis? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987; 94: 963–66.Google ScholarPubMed
71Hollander, DI, Wright, L, Naagey, DA, Wright, JN, Pupkin, MJ, Koch, T.Indicator of perinatal asphyxia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 839–43.Google Scholar
72Niklinski, W, Palynyczko, Z, Jozwik, M, Sledziewski, A.Cord blood serum creatine kinase isoenzymes with placental dysfunction. J Perinat Med 1987; 15: 350.Google Scholar
73Zinsmeyer, J, Marangos, PJ, Issel, EP, Gross, J.Neuron specific enolase in amniotic fluid – a possible indicator for fetal distress and brain implication. J Perinat Med 1987; 15: 199.Google Scholar
74Beutinger, J, Barti, W, Pfersmann, C, Neumark, J, Bernaschek, G.Fetal kidney volume and urine production in cases of fetal growth retardation. J Perinat Med 1987; 15: 307.Google Scholar