Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T18:14:54.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 14 - Antepartum Evaluation of Fetal Well-Being

from Section 2 - Pregnancy, Labor, and Delivery Complications Causing Brain Injury

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2017

By
Mara B. Greenberg ,
Deirdre J. Lyell  and
Maurice L. Druzin
Edited by
David K. Stevenson ,
William E. Benitz ,
Philip Sunshine ,
Susan R. Hintz  and
Maurice L. Druzin
David K. Stevenson
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
William E. Benitz
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Philip Sunshine
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Susan R. Hintz
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Maurice L. Druzin
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Fetal and Neonatal Brain Injury , pp. 212 - 226
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

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

MacDorman, MF, Gregory, ECW. Fetal and perinatal mortality: United States, 2013. National Vital Statistics Reports 2015; 64(8).Google Scholar
Gregory, ECW, MacDorman, MF, Martin, JA. Trends in fetal and perinatal mortality in the United States, 2006–2012 (NCHS data brief, no 169), National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD, 2014.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Perinatal and Infant Mortality Statistics: Committee Opinion 167. Washington, DC: ACOG, 1995.Google Scholar
Osterman, MJ, Kochanek, KD, MacDorman, MF, et al. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2012–2013. Pediatrics 2015; 135(6): 1115–25.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in infant mortality attributable to birth defects: United States, 1980–1995. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1998; 47: 773–8.Google Scholar
Mathews, TJ, MacDorman, MF. Infant mortality statistics from the 2007 period linked birth/infant death data set. National Vital Statistics Reports 2011; 59(6).Google Scholar
Fretts, RC, Boyd, ME, Usher, RH, et al. The changing pattern of fetal death, 1961–1988. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79: 35–9.Google Scholar
Fretts, RC, Schmittdiel, J, McLean, FH, et al. Increased maternal age and the risk of fetal death. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 953–7.Google Scholar
Naeye, RL. Causes of perinatal mortality in the United States Collaborative Perinatal Project. JAMA 1977; 238: 228–9.Google Scholar
Lammer, EJ, Brown, LE, Anderka, MR, et al. Classification and analysis of fetal deaths in Massachussetts. JAMA 1989; 261: 1757–62.Google Scholar
Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network Writing Group. Causes of death among stillbirths. JAMA 2011; 306: 2459–68.Google Scholar
Grant, A, Elbourne, D. Fetal movement counting to assess fetal well-being. In Chalmers, I, Enkin, M, Keirse, MJNC, eds., Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth. Oxford University Press, 1989:440.Google Scholar
Cotzias, CS, Paterson-Brown, S, Fisk, NM. Prospective risk of unexplained stillbirth in singleton pregnancies at term: population based analysis. BMJ 1999; 319: 282–8.Google Scholar
Manning, FA. Assessment of fetal condition and risk: analysis of single and combined biophysical variable monitoring. Semin Perinatol 1985; 9: 168–83.Google Scholar
Van Woerden, EE, VanGeijn, HP. Heart-rate patterns and fetal movements. In Nijhuis, J, ed., Fetal Behaviour. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992:41.Google Scholar
Antepartum fetal surveillance. ACOG Technical Bulletin Number 188: January 1994. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1994; 44: 289–94.Google Scholar
Huddleston, JF, Sutliff, G, Robinson, D. Contraction stress test by intermittent nipple stimulation. Obstet Gynecol 1984; 63: 669–73.Google Scholar
Braly, P, Freeman, R, Garite, T, et al. Incidence of premature delivery following the oxytocin challenge test. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 141:5–8.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Antepartum fetal surveillance (ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 145; replaces ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 9, October 1999). Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124: 182–92Google Scholar
Nageotte, MP, Towers, CV, Asrat, T, et al. The value of a negative antepartum test: contraction stress test and modified biophysical profile. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84: 231–4.Google Scholar
Freeman, R, Anderson, G, Dorchester, W. A prospective multi-institutional study of antepartum fetal heart rate monitoring. I. Risk of perinatal mortality and morbidity according to antepartum fetal heart rate test results. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 143: 771–7.Google Scholar
Freeman, R, Garite, T, Mondanlou, H, et al. Postdate pregnancy: utilization of contraction stress testing for primary fetal surveillance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 140: 128–35.Google Scholar
Druzin, ML, Karver, ML, Wagner, W, et al. Prospective evaluation of the contraction stress test and non-stress tests in the management of post-term pregnancy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992; 174: 507–12.Google Scholar
Merrill, PM, Porto, M, Lovett, SM, et al. Evaluation of the non-reactive positive contraction stress test prior to 32 weeks: the role of the biophysical profile. Am J Perinatol 1995; 12: 229–37.Google Scholar
Hammacher, K. The clinical significance of cardiotocography. In Huntingford, P, Huter, K, Saling, E, eds., Perinatal Medicine: 1st European Congress, Berlin. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1969:80.Google Scholar
Parer, JT. Fetal heart rate. In Creasy, RK, Resnick, R, eds., Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice, 3rd edn. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1994.Google Scholar
Lemons, JA, Bauer, CR, Oh, W. Very low birth weight outcomes of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network, January 1995 through December 1996. Pediatrics 2001; 107: 1.Google Scholar
Graca, LM, Cardoso, CG, Clode, N, et al. Acute effects of maternal cigarette smoking on fetal heart rate and fetal body movements felt by the mother. J Perinat Med 1991; 19: 385–90.Google Scholar
Lavery, J. Nonstress fetal heart rate testing. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1982; 25: 689–705.Google Scholar
Schifrin, B, Foye, G, Amato, J, et al. Routine fetal heart rate monitoring in the antepartum period. Obstet Gynecol 1979; 54: 21–5.Google Scholar
Miller, DA, Rabello, YA, Paul, RH. The modified biophysical profile: antepartum testing in the 1990s. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174: 812–7.Google Scholar
Druzin, ML, Fox, A, Kogut, E, et al. The relationship of the nonstress test to gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 153: 386–9.Google Scholar
Dashow, EE, Read, JA. Significant fetal bradycardia during antepartum heart rate testing. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 148: 187–90.Google Scholar
Druzin, ML. Fetal bradycardia during antepartum testing. J Reprod Med 1989; 34:1.Google Scholar
Phelan, JP. The nonstress test: a review of 3000 tests. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 139: 7–10.Google Scholar
Brown, VA, Sawers, RS, Parsons, RJ, et al. The value of antenatal cardiotocography in the management of high risk pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1982; 89: 716–22.Google Scholar
Flynn, A, Kelly, J, Mansfield, H, et al. A randomized controlled trial of non-stress antepartum cardiotocography. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1982; 89: 427–33.Google Scholar
Kidd, L, Patel, N, Smith, R. Non-stress antenatal cardiotocography: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92: 1156–9.Google Scholar
Lumley, J, Lester, A, Anderson, I, et al. A randomised trial of weekly cardiotocography in high risk obstetric patients. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 90: 1018–26.Google Scholar
Grivell, RM, Alfirevic, Z, Gyte, GM, Devane, D. Antenatal cardiotocography for fetal assessment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 12: CD007863.Google Scholar
Thornton, JG, Lilford, RJ. Do we need randomised trials of antenatal tests of fetal wellbeing? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 100: 197–200.Google Scholar
Schneider, EP, Hutson, JM, Petrie, RH. An assessment of the first decade’s experience with antepartum fetal heart rate testing. Am J Perinatol 1988; 5: 134.Google Scholar
Smith, CV, Phelan, JP, Nguyen, HN, et al. Continuing experience with the fetal acoustic stimulation test. J Reprod Med 1988; 33: 365–8.Google Scholar
Sarno, AP, Bruner, JP. Fetal acoustic stimulation as a possible adjunct to diagnostic ultrasound: a preliminary report. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76: 668–90.Google Scholar
Tan, KH, Smyth, RD, Wei, X. Fetal vibroacoustic stimulation for facilitation of tests of fetal wellbeing. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 12:CD002963.Google Scholar
Serafini, P, Lindsay, MBJ, Nagey, DA, et al. Antepartum fetal heart rate response to sound stimulation, the acoustic stimulation test. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 148: 41–5.Google Scholar
Divon, MY, Platt, LD, Cantrell, CJ. Evoked fetal startle response: a possible intrauterine neurological examination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 153: 454–6.Google Scholar
Ohel, G, Simon, A, Linder, N, et al. Anencephaly and the nature of fetal response to vibroacoustic stimulation. Am J Perinatol 1986; 3: 345–6.Google Scholar
Birnholz, JC, Benacerraf, BR. The development of fetal hearing. Science 1983; 148: 41–5.Google Scholar
Crade, M, Lovett, S. Fetal response to sound stimulation: preliminary report exploring use of sound stimulation in routine obstetrical ultrasound examination. J Ultrasound Med 1988; 7: 499–503.Google Scholar
Druzin, ML, Edersheim, TG, Hutson, JM. The effect of vibroacoustic stimulation on the nonstress test at gestational ages of thirty-two weeks or less. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 1476–8.Google Scholar
Pietrantoni, M, Angel, JL, Parsons, MT, et al. Human fetal response to vibroacoustic stimulation as a function of stimulus duration. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 78: 807–11.Google Scholar
Patrick, J, Campbell, K, Carmichael, L, et al. Patterns of gross fetal body movements over 24-hour observation intervals during the last 10 weeks of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 142: 363–71.Google Scholar
Pearson, JF, Weaver, JB. Fetal activity and fetal wellbeing: an evaluation. Br Med J 1976; 1: 1305–7.Google Scholar
Laventhal, NT, Dildy, GA, Belfort, MA. Fetal tachyarrhythmia associated with vibroacoustic stimulation. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101: 1116–18.Google Scholar
Tan, KH, Sabapathy, A, Wei, X: Fetal manipulation for facilitating tests of fetal wellbeing. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 4: CD003396.Google Scholar
Piyamongkol, W, Trungtawatchai, S, Chanprapaph, P, et al. Comparison of the manual stimulation test and the nonstress test: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Assoc Thai 2006; 89: 1999–2002.Google Scholar
Manning, FA, Snijders, R, Harman, CR, et al. Fetal biophysical profile score. VI. Correlation with antepartum umbilical venous pH. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 169: 755–63.Google Scholar
Neldam, S. Fetal movements as an indicator of fetal well being. Dan Med Bull 1983; 30: 274–8.Google Scholar
Moore, TR, Piacquadio, K. A prospective evaluation of fetal movement screening to reduce the incidence of antepartum fetal death. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160: 1075–80.Google Scholar
Elbourne, D, Grant, A. Study results vary in count-to-10 method of fetal movement screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 163: 264–5.Google Scholar
Grant, A, Valentin, L, Elbourne, D. Routine formal fetal movement counting and risk of antepartum late death in normally formed singletons. Lancet 1989; 2: 345–9.Google Scholar
Sorokin, Y, Kierker, L. Fetal movement. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1982; 25: 719–34.Google Scholar
Johnson, TR, Jordan, ET, Paine, LL. Doppler recordings of fetal movement. II. Comparison with maternal perception. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76: 42–3.Google Scholar
Rayburn, W, Barr, M. Activity patterns in malformed fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 142: 1045–8.Google Scholar
Phelan, JP, Kester, R, Labudovich, ML. Nonstress test and maternal glucose determinations. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 60: 437–9.Google Scholar
Druzin, ML, Foodim, J. Effect of maternal glucose ingestion compared with maternal water ingestion on the nonstress test. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 67: 425–6.Google Scholar
Holden, K, Jovanovic, L, Druzin, M, et al. Increased fetal activity with low maternal blood glucose levels in pregnancies complicated by diabetes. Am J Perinatol 1984; 1: 161–4.Google Scholar
Schwartz, RM, Luby, AM, Scanlon, JW, et al. Effect of surfactant on morbidity, mortality and resource use in newborn infants weighing 500–1,500 grams. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 1476–80.Google Scholar
Draper, J, Field, S, Thomas, H. Women’s views on keeping fetal movement charts. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 334–8.Google Scholar
Mikhail, MS, Freda, MC, Merkatz, RB, et al. The effect of fetal movement counting on maternal attachment to fetus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 165: 988–91.Google Scholar
Rurak, DW, Gruber, NC. Effect of neuromuscular blockade on oxygen consumption and blood gases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983; 145: 258–62.Google Scholar
Nabhan, AF, Abdelmoula, YA: Amniotic fluid index versus single deepest vertical pocket as a screening test for preventing adverse pregnancy outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; 16:CD006593Google Scholar
Inglis, SR, Druzin, ML, Wagner, WE, et al. The use of vibroacoustic stimulation during the abnormal or equivocal biophysical profile. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 371–4.Google Scholar
Vintzileos, AM, Gaffrey, SE, Salinger, IM, et al. The relationship between fetal biophysical profile score and cord pH in patients undergoing cesarean section before the onset of labour. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 196–201.Google Scholar
Manning, F. Fetal assessment by evaluation of biophysical variables: fetal biophysical profile score. In Creasy, R, Resnik, R, eds., Maternal-Fetal Medicine, 3rd edn. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1999.Google Scholar
Manning, FA. Fetal biophysical profile. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1999; 26: 557–77.Google Scholar
Manning, FA, Morrison, I, Lange, IR, et al. Fetal biophysical profile scoring: selective use of the nonstress test. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 156: 709–12.Google Scholar
Kelly, MK, Schneider, EP, Petrikovsky, BM, et al. Effect of antenatal steroid administration on the fetal biophysical profile. J Clin Ultrasound 2000; 28: 224–6.Google Scholar
Deren, O, Karaer, C, Onderoglu, L, et al. The effect of steroids on the biophysical profile and Doppler indices of umbilical and middle cerebral arteries in healthy preterm fetuses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001; 99: 72–6.Google Scholar
Lalor, JG, Fawole, B, Alfirevic, Z, Devane, D. Biophysical profile for fetal assessment in high risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008; 1: CD000038Google Scholar
Nageotte, MP, Towers, CV, Asrat, T, et al. Perinatal outcome with the modified biophysical profile. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170: 1672–6.Google Scholar
McCowan, LME, Harding, JE, Stewart, AW, et al. Umbilical artery Doppler studies in small for gestational age babies reflect disease severity. BJOG 2000; 107: 916–25.Google Scholar
Pollack, RN, Divon, MY. Intrauterine growth retardation: diagnosis. In Copel, JA, Reed, KL, eds., Doppler Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. New York: Raven Press, 1995: 171.Google Scholar
Itskovitz, J. Maternal-fetal hemodynamics. In Maulik, D, McNellis, D, eds., Reproductive and Perinatal Medicine (VIII): Doppler Ultrasound Measurement of Maternal-Fetal Hemodynamics. Ithaca, NY: Perinatology Press, 1987: 13.Google Scholar
Morrow, R, Ritchie, K. Doppler ultrasound fetal velocimetry and its role in obstetrics. Clin Perinatol 1989; 16: 771.Google Scholar
Copel, JA, Schlafer, D, Wentworth, R, et al. Does the umbilical artery systolic/diastolic ratio reflect flow or acidosis? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 163: 751.Google Scholar
Farine, D, Kelly, EN, Ryan, G, et al. Absent and reversed umbilical artery end-diastolic velocity. In Copel, JA, Reed, KL, eds., Doppler Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. New York: Raven Press, 1995: 187.Google Scholar
Divon, MY, Ferber, A. Evidence-based antepartum fetal testing. Prenat Neonatal Med 2000; 5: 3–8.Google Scholar
Turan, S, Turan, OM, Berg, C, et al. 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.Google Scholar
Alfirevic, Z, Stampalija, T, Gyte, GM. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 11: CD007529Google Scholar
Alfirevic, Z, Stampalija, T, Gyte, GM: Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; 8: CD001450Google Scholar
Rizzo, G, Arduini, D, Romanini, C. First trimester fetal and uterine Doppler. In Copel, JA, Reed, KL, eds., Doppler Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. New York: Raven Press, 1995: 105.Google Scholar
Signore, C, Freeman, RK, Spong, CY: Antenatal testing: a reevaluation. Executive summary of a Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113:687.Google Scholar
Scifres, CM, Macones, GA: Antenatal testing: benefits and costs. Semin Perinatol 2008; 32: 318.Google Scholar
Kontopoulos, EV, Vintzileos, AM: Condition-specific antepartum fetal testing. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 1546.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×