Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-56sbs Total loading time: 0.196 Render date: 2021-09-22T03:53:25.797Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Antenatal detection of fetal compromise

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

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
*Corresponding
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.

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
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Flynn, AM, Kelly, J, Mansfield, H et al. A randomized controlled trial of nonstress antepartum cardiotocography. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1982; 89: 427.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Petrie, RH. Antepartum surveillance of fetal well-being. In: Rathi, M ed, Clinical aspects of perinatal medicine, Volume 2. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1986:4659Google Scholar
11Farahani, G, Vasudeva, K, Petrie, RH, Fenton, AN.Oxytocin challenge test in high risk pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1976; 47: 159–62.Google ScholarPubMed
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 Scholar
14Brown, R, Patrick, J.The nonstress test: how long is enough? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 141: 646.CrossRefGoogle 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 Scholar
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: 6164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Trudinger, B, Boylan, P.Antepartum fetal heart rate monitoring: Value of sound stimulation. Obstet Gynecol 1980; 55:265–67.Google ScholarPubMed
20Smith, CV, Phelan, JP, Platt, LD, Broussard, P, Paul, H.Fetal acoustic stimulation testing. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 155: 131–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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 Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Rayburn, W, Zuspan, F, Motley, ME, Donaldson, M.An alternative to antepartum fetal heart rate testing. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 138: 223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34Vintzileos, AM, Campbell, WA, Ingardia, CJ et al. The biophysical profile and its predictive value. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 62: 271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 ScholarPubMed
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 Scholar
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 Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41Hill, LM, Breckle, R, Ragozzino, MW, Wolfgram, KR, O'Brien, PC.Grade 3 placentation: Incidence and neonatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 61: 728.Google ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 502505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 6678.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 ScholarPubMed
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 Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 3641.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63Weiner, CP.Cordocentesis for diagnostic indications: Two years experience. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 664.Google Scholar
64Hobbins, JC, Grannum, PA, Romero, R et al. Percutaneous umbilical cord sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 152: 1.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
67Nicolaides, KH, Bradley, RJ, Soothill, PWCampbell, S, Bilardo, CM, Gibb, D.Maternal oxygen therapy for intrauterine growth retardation. Lancet 1987; 1: 942.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 Scholar
71Hollander, DI, Wright, L, Naagey, DA, Wright, JN, Pupkin, MJ, Koch, T.Indicator of perinatal asphyxia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 839–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
72Niklinski, W, Palynyczko, Z, Jozwik, M, Sledziewski, A.Cord blood serum creatine kinase isoenzymes with placental dysfunction. J Perinat Med 1987; 15: 350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Antenatal detection of fetal compromise
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Antenatal detection of fetal compromise
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Antenatal detection of fetal compromise
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *