Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-cn8nj Total loading time: 0.317 Render date: 2021-09-25T07:33:58.540Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Assessment of wellbeing in the preterm fetus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

Daniel E Challis*
Affiliation:
Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Westmead Hospital and University of Sydney, Australia.
Brian J Trudinger
Affiliation:
Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Westmead Hospital and University of Sydney, Australia.
*
Address for correspondence: Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead NSW 2145, Australia.

Extract

The unstated aim of preterm fetal welfare surveillance is to enable the obstetrician to delay delivery if a fetus is not at risk of death or permanent damage. Although the penalty for preterm delivery has decreased with advances in neonatal care, the obstetric goals of prolonging pregnancy and minimizing intervention persist. The modern goal of minimizing costs also dictates appropriately timed delivery.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

1Patterson, RM, Pouliot, RN. Neonatal morphometrics and perinatal outcome: who is growth retarded? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 691–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Fay, RA, Dey, PL, Saadie, CM, Buhl, JA, Gebski, VJ. Ponderal index: a better definition of the ‘at risk’ group with intrauterine problems than birth weight for gestational age in term infants. Anst NZ J Obstet Gvnaecol 1991; 31: 1719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Summers, JE, Findley, CM, Ferguson, KA. Evaluation of measures for intrauterine growth using neonatal fat scores instead of birth weight as outcome measures: fetal and neonatal measurements correlated with neonatal skinfold thickness. J Clin Ultrasound 1990; 18: 914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Georgieff, MK, Sasanow, SR, Mammel, MC, Pereira, GR. Mid-arm circumference/head circumference ratios for identification of symptomatic LGA, AGA and SGA newborn infants. J Pediatr 1986; 109: 316–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Villar, J, Belizan, J. The timing factor in the pathophysiology of the intrauterine growth retardation syndrome. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1982; 37: 499506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Richardson, DK, Schwartz, JS, Weinbaum, PJ, Gabbe, SG. Diagnostic tests in obstetrics: a method of improved evaluation. Am J Obstet Gvnecol 1985; 152: 613–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Dijxhoorn, MJ, Visser, GHA, Fidler, VJ, Touwen, BCL, Huisjes, HJ. Apgar score, meconium and acidaemia at birth in relation to neonatal neurological morbidity in term infants. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 217–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Ruth, VJ, Ravio, KO. Perinatal brain damage: predictive value of metabolic acidosis and Apgar score. Br Med J 1988; 297: 2427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Sykes, GS, Molloy, PM, Johnson, P, Gu, W, Ashworth, F, Stirrat, GM et al. Do Apgar scores indicate asphyxia? Lancet 1982; 1: 494–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Dennis, J, Johnson, A, Mutch, L, Yudkin, P, Johnson, P. Acid base status at birth and neurological outcome at four and one half years. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 213–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Fetal and neonatal neurologic injury. ACOG Technical Bulletin 1992; No 163.Google Scholar
12American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Fetal distress and birth asphyxia. ACOG Technical Bulletin 1994; No 137.Google Scholar
13Wald, NJ. Antenatal and neonatal screening. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
14Newnham, JP, Patterson, LL, James, IR, Diepeveen, DA, Reid, SE. An evaluation of the efficacy of Doppler flow velocity waveform analysis as a screening test in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 403–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Rayburn, WF. Fetal drug therapy: an overview of selected conditions. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1991; 47: 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Trudinger, BJ, Cook, CM, Thompson, RS, Giles, WB, Connelly, A. Low dose aspirin improves fetal weight in umbilical placental insufficiency. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 159: 681–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Lowe, SA, Rubin, C. The pharmacological management of hypertension in pregnancy. J Hypertension 1992; 10: 201207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Steer, P. Rituals in antenatal care - do we need them? Br Med J 1993; 307: 697–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Backe, B, Nackling, J. Effectiveness of antenatal care: a population based study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 100: 727–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Villar, J, Belzian, JM. The evaluation of the methods used in the diagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1986; 41: 187–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Quaranta, P, Curell, R, Redman, CWG, Robinson, JS. Prediction of small-for-dates infants by measurement of symphysial-fundal height. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1981; 88: 115–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Persson, B, Stagenberg, M, Lunnell, NO, Brodin, U, Holmberg, NG, Vaclavincova, V. Prediction of size of infants at birth by measurement of symphysis fundal height. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 206–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Hepburn, M, Rosenberg, K. An audit of the detection and management of small-for-gestational age babies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 212–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Abrams, BF, Laros, RK, Prepregnancy, weight, weight gain and birth weight. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 154: 503509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Grant, AM, Elbourne, DR, Valentin, L, Alexander, S. Routine formal fetal movement counting and risk of late death in normally formed singletons. Lancet 1989; 2: 345–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Chang, TC, Robson, SC, Boys, RJ, Spencer, JAD. Prediction of the small for gestational age infant: which ultrasonic measurement is best? Obstet Gynecol 1992; 80: 1030–38.Google ScholarPubMed
27Gallivan, S, Robson, SC, Chang, TC, Vaughan, J, Spencer, JAD. An investigation of fetal growth using serial ultrasound data. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1993; 3: 109–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Altman, DG, Hytten, FE. Intrauterine growth retardation: let's be clear about it. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96: 1127–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Chamberlain, PF, Manning, FA, Morrison, I, Harman, CR, Lange, IR. 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: 245–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Chamberlain, PF, Manning, FA, Morrison, I, Harman, CR, Lange, IR. Ultrasound evaluation of amniotic fluid volume. II. The relationship of increased amniotic fluid volumes to perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 150: 250–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Brace, RA, Wolf, EJ. Normal amniotic fluid changes throughout pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 382–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Phelan, JP, Smith, CV, Broussard, P, Small, M. Amniotic fluid volume assessment using the four quadrant technique in the pregnancy between 36 and 42 weeks gestation. J Reprod Med 1987; 32: 540–42.Google Scholar
33Rutherford, SE, Vernon Smith, C, Phelan, JP, Kawa-kami, K, Ahn, MO. Four quadrant assessment of amniotic fluid volume. Interobserver and intraobserver variation. J Reprod Med 1987; 32: 587–89.Google ScholarPubMed
34Gilbert, WM, Moore, TR, Brace, RA. Amniotic fluid dynamics. Fetal Med Rev 1991; 3: 89104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35Trudinger, BJ. Dpppler ultrasound and assessment of blood flow. In: Creasy, RK, Resnik, R eds, Maternal-fetal medicine. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Press, 1994.Google Scholar
36Peng, TCC. Doppler velocimetry and its applications in pregnancy. Ultrasound Quarterly 1990; 8: 121–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37Trudinger, BJ, Giles, WB, Cook, CM. Flow velocity waveforms in the maternal uteroplacental and fetal umbilical placental circulations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 152: 155–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38Thompson, RS, Trudinger, BJ, Cook, CM. Doppler ultrasound waverform indices: A/B ratio, pulsatility index and Pourcelot ratio. Br J Obstet Gvnaecol 1988; 95: 581–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Mulders, LG, Wijn, PF, Jongsma, HW, Hein, PR. A comparative study of three indices of umbilical blood flow in relation to prediction of growth retardation. J Perinea Med 1987; 15: 312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40Thompson, RS, Trudinger, BJ, Cook, CM, Giles, WB. Umbilical artery velocity waveforms: normal reference values for AB ratio. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1988; 95: 589–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Giles, WB, Trudinger, BJ, Baird, PJ. Fetal umbilical artery flow velocity waveforms and placental resistance: pathological correlation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92: 3138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42McCowan, LM, Mullen, BM, Ritchie, K. Umbilical flow velocity waveforms and the placental vascular bed. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 900902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43Thompson, RS, Stevens, RJ. A mathematical model for interpretation of Doppler velocity waveform indices. Med Biol Eng Comput 1989; 27: 269–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44Brar, HS, Horenstein, J, Medearis, AL, Platt, LD, Phelan, JP, Paul, RH. Cerebral, umbilical and uterine resistance using Doppler velocimetry in postterm pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med 1989; 8: 187–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45Brar, HS, Medearis, AL, DeVore, OR, Platt, LD. Maternal and fetal blood flow velocity waveforms in pregnancies complicated by preterm labour: prediction of successful tocolysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 159: 947–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46Marsal, K, Eik-Nes, SH, Lindblad, A, Lingman, G. Blood flow in the fetal descending aorta. Intrinsic factors affecting blood flow in fetal breathing movements and cardiac arrythmias. Ultrasound Med Biol 1984; 10: 339–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47Jouppila, P, Kirkinen, P. Increased vascular resistance in the descending aorta of the human fetus in hypoxia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1984; 91: 853–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48van den Winjngaard, JAGW, Groenenberg, IAL, Wladimiroff, JW, Hop, WCJ. Cerebral Doppler ultrasound of the human fetus. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96: 845–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49Vyas, S, Nicolaides, KH, Bower, S, Campbell, S. Middle cerebral artery flow velocity waveforms in fetal hypoxaemia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 91: 797803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50Arbeille, PH, Roncin, A, Berson, M, Patat, F, Pourcelot, L. Exploration of the fetal cerebral blood flow by duplex Doppler linear array system in normal and pathological pregnancies. Ultrasound Med Biol 1987; 13: 329–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51Gill, RW, Kossoff, G, Warren, PS, Garrett, WJ. Umbilical venous flow in normal and complicated pregnancy. Ultrasound Med Biol 1984; 10: 349–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52Hanson, MA. The control of heart rate and blood pressure in the fetus: theoretical considerations. In: Hanson, MA, Spencer, JAD, Rodeck, CH eds, Fetus and neonate. Physiology and clinical applications. Volume I. The circulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993: 122.Google Scholar
53Schifferli, PY, Caldeyro-Barcia, R. Effects of atropine and beta-adrenergic drugs on the heart rate of the human fetus. In: Boreus, L ed, Fetal pharmacology. New York: Raven Press, 1973: 259–79.Google Scholar
54Smith, CV, Phelan, JP, Paul, RH. A prospective analysis of the influence of gestational age on the baseline fetal heart rate and reactivity in a low risk population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 153: 780–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55Wheeler, T, Murrils, A. Patterns of fetal heart rate during normal pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1978; 85: 1827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56Natale, R, Nasello, C, Turliuk, R. The relationship between movements and accelerations in fetal heart rate at twenty-four to thirty-two weeks’ gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 148: 591–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57Druzin, ML, Fox, A, Kogut, E, Carlson, C. The relation-ship of the nonstress test to gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 153: 386–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58Smith, CV, Phelan, JP, Paul, RH. A prospective analysis of the influence of gestational age on the baseline fetal heart rate and reactivity in a low risk population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 153: 780–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59Lavin, JP, Miodovnik, M, Harden, TP. Relationship of nonstress test nonreactivity and gestational age. Obstet Gynecol 1984; 63: 338–44.Google Scholar
60Sorokin, Y, Dierker, LJ, Pillary, SK, Zador, IE, Schreiner, ML, Rosen, MG. The association between fetal heart rate patterns and fetal movements in pregnancies between 20 and 30 weeks’ gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 143: 243–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
61Brown, E, Patrick, J. The non-stress test: how long is enough? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 141: 646–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62Maurer, M. Developmental factors contributing to the susceptibility to bradycardia in isolated, cultured fetal mouse hearts. Pediatr Res 1979; 13: 1059–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
63Devoe, LD, McKenzie, J, Searle, N, Sherline, DM. Non-stress test: dimensions of normal reactivity. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 66: 617–20.Google Scholar
64Devoe, LD. Antepartum fetal heart rate testing in preterm pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 60: 431–36.Google ScholarPubMed
65Castillo, RA, Devoe, LD, Arthur, M, Searle, N, Metheny, WP, Ruedrich, DA. The preterm nonstress test: effects of gestational age and length of study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160: 172–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
66Shifrin, BS, Lapidus, M, Doctor, OS, Leviton, A. Contraction stress test for antepartum fetal evaluation. Obstet Gynecol 1975; 45: 433–38.Google Scholar
67Freeman, RK. The use of the oxytocin challenge test for antepartum clinical evaluation of uteroplacental respiratory function. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1975; 121: 481–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
68Gabbe, SG, Freeman, RK, Goeblesman, U. Evaluation of the contraction stress test before 33 weeks gestation. Obstet Gynecol 1978; 52: 649–52.Google Scholar
69Freeman, RK, 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 results. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 143: 771–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
70Freeman, RK, Anderson, G, Dorchester, W. A prospective multi-institutional study of antepartum fetal heart rate monitoring. II. Contraction stress test versus nonstress test for primary surveillance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 143: 778–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
71Visser, GHA, Zeelenberg, HJ, de Vries, JIP, Dawes, GS. External physical stimulation of the human fetus during episodes of low heart rate variability. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 145: 579–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
72Kisilevsky, BS, Muir, DW, Low, JA. Maturation of human fetal responses to vibroacoustic stimulation. Child Dev 1992; 63: 1497–508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
73Thomas, RL, Johnson, TRB, Besinger, RE, Rafkin, D, Treanor, C, Strobino, D. Preterm and term fetal cardiac and movement responses to vibroacoustic stimulation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 141–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74Gagnon, R, Hunse, C, Carmichael, L, Fellows, F, Patrick, J. Fetal heart rate and fetal activity patterns after vibratory acoustic stimulation at thirty to thirty-two weeks’ gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 158: 7579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
75Natale, R, Nasello-Patterson, C, Turliuk, R. Longitudinal measurements of fetal breathing, body movements, heart rate, and heart rate accelerations and decelerations at 24 to 32 weeks of gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 256–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
76Natale, R, Clewlow, F, Dawes, GS. Measurement of fetal forelimb movements in the lamb in utero. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 140: 545–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
77Natale, R, Patrick, J, Richardson, B. Effects of human maternal plasma glucose concentrations on fetal breathing movements. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978; 132: 3641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
78Lewis, PJ, Trudinger, BJ, Mangez, J. Effect of maternal glucose ingestion on fetal breathing and body movements in pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1978; 85: 8689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
79Manning, FA, Platt, LD, Sipos, N. Antepartum fetal evaluation: development of a fetal biophysical profile. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 136: 787–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
80Vintzilios, AM, Gaffney, SE, Salinger, LM, Kontopoulos, VG, Campbell, WA, Nochimson, DJ. The relationships among the fetal biophysical profile, umbilical cord pH, and Apgar scores. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157:627–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
81Baskett, MB. Gestational age and fetal biophysical profile. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 158: 332–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
82Nicolaides, KH, Economides, DL, Soothill, PW. Blood gases, pH, and lactate in appropriate and small-for- gestational-age fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 155: 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
83Nicolini, U, Nicolaides, P, Fisk, NM, Vaughan, JI, Fusi, L, Gleeson, R et al. Limited role of fetal blood sampling in prediction of outcome in intrauterine growth retardation. Lancet 1990; 2: 768–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
84Vilar, J, de Onis, M, Kestler, E, Bolanos, F, Cerezo, R, Bernedes, H. The differential neonatal morbidity of the intrauterine growth retardation syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 163: 151–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
85Berkowitz, GS, Chitkara, U, Rosenberg, J, Cogswell, C, Berkowitz, RL. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight and Doppler analysis of umbilical artery velocimetry in the prediction of intrauterine growth retardation: a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 158: 1149–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
86Arabin, B, Mohnkaupt, A, Becker, R, Weitzel, HK. Comparison of the prognostic value of pulsed Doppler blood flow parameters to predict SGA and fetal distress. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1992; 2: 272–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
87Gramellini, D, Folli, MC, Raboni, S, Vadora, E, Merialdi, A. Cerebral-umbilical Doppler ratio as a predictor of adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79: 416–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
88Chang, TC, Robson, SC, Spencer, JAD, Gallivan, S. Identification of fetal growth retardation: comparison of Doppler waveform indices and serial ultrasound measurements of abdominal circumference and weight. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 230–36.Google Scholar
89Farmakides, G, Shulman, H, Winter, D, Ducey, J, Guzman, E, Penny, B. Prenatal surveillance using non-stress testing and Doppler velocimetry. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 71: 184–87.Google Scholar
90Marsal, K, Persson, P. Ultrasonic measurement of fetal blood velocity waveform as a secondary diagnostic test in screening for intrauterine growth retardation. J Clin Ultrasound 1988; 16: 239–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
91Newnham, JP, O'Dea, MR, Reid, KP, Diepeveen, DA, James, I. Doppler waveform analysis in high risk obstetric cases: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98: 958–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
92Henson, G, Dawes, GS, Redman CWG. Characterization of the reduced heart rate variation in growth retarded fetuses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1984; 91: 751–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
93Bekedam, DJ, Visser, GHA, Mulder, EJH, Poelmann-Weesjes, G. Heart rate variation and movement incidence in growth retarded fetuses: the significance of antenatal late heart rate decelerations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 126–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
94Gagnon, R, Hunse, C, Carmichael, L, Patrick, J. Vibratory acoustic stimulation in 26- to 32-week, small-for-gestational-age fetus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160: 160–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
95Tulchinsky, D. Use of biochemical indices in the management of high risk obstetrical patients. Clin Perinatal 1980; 7: 413–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
96Campbell, DM. Multiple pregnancy. Baillières Clin Obstet Gynecol 1990; 4: 109–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
97D'alton, ME, Mercer, BM. Antepartum management of the twin gestation: ultrasound. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1990; 33: 4251.Google ScholarPubMed
98Winn, HL. Ultrasonographic criteria for the prenatal diagnosis of chorionicity in twin pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 1540–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
99Townsend, RR, Simpson, GF, Filly, RA. Membrane thickness in the ultrasound prediction of chorionicity of twin gestations. J Ultrasound Med 1988; 7: 327–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
100Nielson, JP, Danskin, F, Hastie, SJ. Monozygotic twin pregnancy: diagnostic and Doppler ultrasound studies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96: 1413–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
101Giles, WB, Trudinger, BJ, Cook, CM. Fetal umbilical artery flow velocity-time waveforms in twin pregnancies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92: 490–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
102Giles, WB, Trudinger, BJ, Cook, CM, Connely, AJ. Umbilical artery waveforms in triplet pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75: 813–16.Google ScholarPubMed
103Blake, GD, Knupple, RA, Ingardia, CJ, Lake, M, Aumann, G, Hanson, M. Evaluation of non-stress fetal heart rate testing in multiple gestations. Obstet Gynecol 1984; 63: 528–32.Google Scholar
104Gallagher, MW, Costigan, K, Johnson, TRB. Fetal heart rate accelerations, fetal movement, and fetal behavior patterns in twin gestations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 167: 1140–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
105Sherer, DM, Abramowicz, JS, D'Amico, ML, Caverly, CB, Woods, JR. Fetal vibratory acoustic stimulation in twin gestations with simultaneous fetal heart rate monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 164: 1104–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
106Knuppel, RA, Rattan, PR, Scerbo, JC, O'Brien, WF. Intrauterine fetal death in twins after 32 weeks gestation. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 65: 172–75.Google Scholar
107Duncan, SLB, Ginz, B, Wahab, H. Use of ultrasound and hormone assays in the diagnosis, management, and outcome of twin pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1979; 53: 367–72.Google ScholarPubMed
108Lodeiro, GL, Vintzileos, AM, Feinstein, SJ, Campbell, WA, Nochimson, DJ. Fetal biopshysical profile in twin gestations. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 67: 824–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
109Mead, PB. Management of the patient with premature rupture of the membranes. Clin Perinatal 1980; 7: 243–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
110Gibbs, RS, Blanco, JD. Premature rupture of the membranes. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 60: 671–79.Google ScholarPubMed
111Garite, TJ, Freeman, RK, Linzy, EM, Braly, P. The use of amniocentesis in patients with premature rupture of the membranes. Obstet Gynecol 1979; 54: 226–30.Google Scholar
112Gonik, B, Cotton, DB. The use of amniocentesis in preterm premature rupture of the membranes. Am J Perinatal 1985; 2: 2124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
113Goldstein, I, Romero, R, Merrill, S, Wan, M, O'Connor, TZ, Mazor, M 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
114Vintzileos, AM, Campbell, WA, Nochimson, DJ, Connely, ME, Fuenfer, MM, Hoen, GJ. The fetal bio-physical profile in patients with premature rupture of the membranes - an early predictor of fetal infection. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 152: 510–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
115Vintzileos, AM, Bors-Koefoed, R, Pelegano, JF, Campbell, WA, Rodis, JF, Nochimson, DJ et al. The use of fetal biophysical profile improves pregnancy outcome in premature rupture of the membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 236–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
116Romero, R, Yoon, BH, Mazor, M, Gomez, R, Gonzalez, R, Diamond, MP et al. A comparative study of the diagnostic performance of amniotic fluid glucose, white blood cell count, interleukin-6 and Gram stain in the detection of microbial invasion in patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 169: 839–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
117Moberg, LJ, Garite, TJ, Freeman, RK. Fetal heart rate patterns and fetal distress in patients with preterm premature rupture of the membranes. Obstet Gynecol 1984; 64: 6064.Google Scholar
118Wilson, JC, Levy, DC, Wilds, PL. Premature rupture of the membranes prior to term: consequences of non-intervention. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 60: 601606.Google Scholar
119Bowman, JM. Hemolytic disease (erythroblastosis fetalis). In: Creasy, RK, Resnik, R eds, Maternal-fetal medicine. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Press, 1993: 711–43.Google Scholar
120Nicolaides, KH, Rodeck, CH, Mibashan, MD, Kemp, JR. Have Liley charts outlived their usefulness? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 155: 9094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
121Harman, CR. Fetal monitoring in the alloimmunised pregnancy. Clin Perinatal 1989; 16: 691733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
122Sadovsky, E, Laufer, N, Beyth, Y. The role of fetal movement assessment in cases of severe Rh immunised patients. Ada Obstet Gynecol Scand 1979; 58: 313–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
123Modanlou, HD, Freeman, RK. Sinusoidal fetal heart rate pattern: its definition and clinical significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 142: 1033–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
124Kirkinen, P, Jouppila, P, Eik-Nes, S. Umbilical venous blood flow in rhesus isoimmunisation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1983; 90: 640–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
125Warren, PS, Gill, RW, Fisher, CC. Doppler flow studies in Rhesus isoimmunisation. Semin Perinatal 1987; 4: 375–78.Google Scholar
126Favre, Y, Vetteer, K, Much, R, Huch, A. Doppler velocimetry of the aorta in maternofetal blood incompatibility. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 1989; 18: 740–46.Google Scholar
127Rightmire, DA, Nicolaides, KH, Rodeck, C, Campbell, S. Fetal blood velocities in Rh isoimmunisation: relationship to gestational age and to fetal haematocrit. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 68: 233–36.Google Scholar
128Copel, JA, Grannum, PA, Belanger, K, Green, J, Hobbins, JC. Pulsed Doppler flow velocity waveforms before and after intravascular transfusion for severe erythroblastosis fetalis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 158: 768–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
129Oepkes, D, Vandenbussche, FP, Van-Bel, F, Kanhai, HH. Fetal ductus venosus blood flow velocities before and after transfusion in red cell alloimmunized pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 237–41.Google ScholarPubMed
130Frigoletto, FD, Greene, MF, Benacerraf, BR, Barss, VA, Saltzman, DH. Ultrasonographic fetal surveillance in the management of the isoimmunized pregnancy. N Engl J Med 1986; 315: 430–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
131Reece, EA, Cole, SW, Romero, R, Gabrielli, S, O'Connor, TZ, Hobbins, JC. Ultrasonography versus amniotic fluid spectral analysis: are they sensitive enough to predict neonatal complications associated with isoimmunization? Obstet Gvnecol 1989; 74: 357–60.Google ScholarPubMed
132Reece, EA, Gabrielli, S, Abdalla, M, O'Connor, TZ, Hobbins, JC. Reassessment of the utility of fetal umbilical vein diameter in the management of iso-immunization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 159:937–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
133Vintzileos, AM, Campbell, WA, Storlazzi, E, Microchnik, MH, Escoto, DT, Nochimson, DJ. Fetal liver ultra-sound measurements in iso-immunized pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 68: 162–67.Google Scholar
134Sadovsky, E, Polishuk, WZ. Fetal movements in utero -nature, assessment, prognostic value, timing of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1977; 50: 49.Google ScholarPubMed
135Sorokin, Y, Dierker, LJ. Fetal movement. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1982; 25: 719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
136Sadovsky, E, Polishuk, WZ. Fetal heart rate monitoring in cases of decreased fetal movement. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1976; 14: 285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
137Navot, D, Yaffe, H, Sadovsky, E. Diagnosis of fetal jeopardy by assessment of fetal movement and heart rate acceleration. J Perinatal Med 1983; 11: 175.Google Scholar
138Milliez, J, Legrand, H, Goupil, F, Vaquier, J, Rochart, F, Bréart, G et al. Antepartum fetal heart rate monitoring. III. Fetal movements and accelerations in fetal heart rate. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1981; 11: 251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
139Ahn, MO, Phelan, JP, Vernon Smith, C, Jacobs, N, Rutherford, SE. Antepartum fetal surveillance in the patient with decreased fetal movement. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 860–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
140Sheppard, BL, Bonnar, J. Uteroplacental arteries and hypertensive pregnancy. In: Bonnar, J, MacGillivray, I, Symonds, EM eds, Pregnancy hypertension. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1980.Google Scholar
141Fleischer, A, Schulman, H, Farmakides, G, Bracero, L, Grunfeld, L, Rochelson, B et al. Uterine artery Doppler velocimetry in pregnant women with hypertension. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 154: 806–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
142Trudinger, BJ, Cook, CM. Doppler umbilical and uterine flow waveforms in severe pregnancy hypertension. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 92: 142–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
143Landon, MB, Gabbe, SF, Bruner, JP, Ludmir, J. Doppler umbilical artery velocimetry in pregnancy complicated by insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 73: 961–65.Google ScholarPubMed
144Golde, SH, Montoro, M, Good-Anderson, B, Broussard, P, Jacobs, N, Loesser, C et al. The role of nonstress tests, fetal biophysical profile, and contraction stress tests in the outpatient management of insulin-requiring diabetic pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 148: 269–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
145Trudinger, BJ, Stewart, G, Cook, CM, Connely, A, Exner, T. Monitoring lupus anticoagulant positive pregnancies with umbilical artery flow velocity wave-forms. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 72: 215–18.Google Scholar

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.

Assessment of wellbeing in the preterm fetus
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.

Assessment of wellbeing in the preterm fetus
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.

Assessment of wellbeing in the preterm fetus
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? *