A systematic review on the utility of non-invasive electrophysiological assessment in evaluating for intra uterine growth restriction.
Cardiac time intervals
Fetal electrocardiogram
Fetal magnetocardiogram
Intra uterine growth restriction
Long term variability
PRSA
Short term variability
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Jul 2019
05 Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
18
07
2018
accepted:
12
06
2019
entrez:
7
7
2019
pubmed:
7
7
2019
medline:
15
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Non-invasive electrophysiological assessment (NIEA) is an evolving area in fetal surveillance and is attracting increasing research interest. There is however, limited data outlining its utility in evaluating intra uterine growth restriction (IUGR). The objective of this study was to carry out a systematic review to outline the utility of NIEA parameters in evaluating IUGR. A systematic review of peer reviewed literature was performed, searching PUBMED, Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE. The outcomes of interest included NIEA parameters [P wave duration, PR interval, QRS duration, QT interval, T/QRS ratio, short term variability (STV) and long term variability (LTV)] and a descriptive summary of relevant studies as well. Sixteen studies were identified as suitable for inclusion. The utility of NIEA parameters were investigated in tabular form. In particular, QRS and QT duration, T/QRS ratio, STV and PRSA analysis displayed utility and merit further consideration in evaluating for IUGR. Issues identified in the review were in relation to variances in definition of IUGR, small sample sizes and the lack of technological consistency across studies. NIEA shows promise as an adjunct surveillance tool in fetal diagnostics for IUGR. Larger prospective studies should be directed towards establishing reliable parameters with a focus on uniformity of IUGR definition, technological consistency and the individualisation of NIEA parameters.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Non-invasive electrophysiological assessment (NIEA) is an evolving area in fetal surveillance and is attracting increasing research interest. There is however, limited data outlining its utility in evaluating intra uterine growth restriction (IUGR). The objective of this study was to carry out a systematic review to outline the utility of NIEA parameters in evaluating IUGR.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic review of peer reviewed literature was performed, searching PUBMED, Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE. The outcomes of interest included NIEA parameters [P wave duration, PR interval, QRS duration, QT interval, T/QRS ratio, short term variability (STV) and long term variability (LTV)] and a descriptive summary of relevant studies as well.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were identified as suitable for inclusion. The utility of NIEA parameters were investigated in tabular form. In particular, QRS and QT duration, T/QRS ratio, STV and PRSA analysis displayed utility and merit further consideration in evaluating for IUGR. Issues identified in the review were in relation to variances in definition of IUGR, small sample sizes and the lack of technological consistency across studies.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
NIEA shows promise as an adjunct surveillance tool in fetal diagnostics for IUGR. Larger prospective studies should be directed towards establishing reliable parameters with a focus on uniformity of IUGR definition, technological consistency and the individualisation of NIEA parameters.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31277600
doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2357-9
pii: 10.1186/s12884-019-2357-9
pmc: PMC6610904
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
230Références
Fetal Diagn Ther. 1999 Mar-Apr;14(2):92-7
pubmed: 10085506
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2000 Jan;88(1):43-8
pubmed: 10659915
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2001 Jan;39(1):118-25
pubmed: 11214263
Brain Topogr. 2001 Fall;14(1):69-80
pubmed: 11599534
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2003 Mar;50(3):365-74
pubmed: 12669993
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Apr;188(4):1011-5
pubmed: 12712102
Prenat Diagn. 2003 May;23(5):405-9
pubmed: 12749039
Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Oct;80(4):673-8
pubmed: 1407893
Early Hum Dev. 2003 Oct;74(1):1-11
pubmed: 14512177
Med Eng Phys. 2003 Dec;25(10):801-10
pubmed: 14630467
Physiol Meas. 2004 Apr;25(2):585-93
pubmed: 15132321
Pediatr Res. 2006 Jun;59(6):820-4
pubmed: 16641208
Lancet. 2006 May 20;367(9523):1674-81
pubmed: 16714188
Biomed Tech (Berl). 2006 Oct;51(4):248-50
pubmed: 17061950
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Jan;166(1 Pt 1):246-55
pubmed: 1733202
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Sep;165(3):515-23
pubmed: 1892175
Early Hum Dev. 2009 Dec;85(12):795-8
pubmed: 19931326
Prenat Diagn. 2011 May;31(5):509-14
pubmed: 21360555
J Pregnancy. 2011;2011:218162
pubmed: 21547087
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Dec;25(12):2523-8
pubmed: 22630786
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Dec;25(12):2517-22
pubmed: 22725720
Am J Perinatol. 2013 Jan;30(1):33-9
pubmed: 22814800
J Dev Physiol. 1990 May;13(5):289-93
pubmed: 2286752
Prenat Diagn. 2012 Nov;32(11):1059-65
pubmed: 22886606
NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;32(1):95-102
pubmed: 23422462
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Apr;208(4):290.e1-6
pubmed: 23531326
Early Hum Dev. 2013 Oct;89(10):815-9
pubmed: 23907090
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Feb 11;14:63
pubmed: 24517273
Comput Math Methods Med. 2014;2014:707581
pubmed: 24639886
Physiol Meas. 2014 Aug;35(8):1521-36
pubmed: 25071093
Am J Perinatol. 2015 Mar;32(4):307-16
pubmed: 25217738
Pediatrics. 2015 Jan;135(1):126-41
pubmed: 25548332
Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2015 Jul;20(4):303-13
pubmed: 25640061
PLoS One. 2015 Feb 13;10(2):e0117509
pubmed: 25680192
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015 May;188:104-12
pubmed: 25801726
BJOG. 2015 Jul;122(8):1062-72
pubmed: 25990812
J Perinat Med. 2016 Oct 1;44(7):751-757
pubmed: 26020551
BJOG. 2016 Nov;123(12):1947-1954
pubmed: 26395895
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015 Oct;131(1):13-24
pubmed: 26433401
J Perinat Med. 2016 Oct 1;44(7):785-792
pubmed: 26584353
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Sep;48(3):333-9
pubmed: 26909664
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016 Dec;29(24):4037-48
pubmed: 26979578
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Mar 16;16:55
pubmed: 26984160
J Perinatol. 2016 Aug;36(8):643-8
pubmed: 27031323
Physiol Meas. 2016 May;37(5):R1-R35
pubmed: 27067431
Adv Clin Exp Med. 2016 Mar-Apr;25(2):309-16
pubmed: 27627565
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Jan;38:38-47
pubmed: 27720309
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Jan;38:48-58
pubmed: 27940123
Front Physiol. 2017 Jun 26;8:437
pubmed: 28694782
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017 Nov;96(11):1322-1329
pubmed: 28862738
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 May;49:53-65
pubmed: 29606482
Front Physiol. 2018 May 18;9:478
pubmed: 29867536
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018 Sep 12;18(1):370
pubmed: 30208861
J Perinat Med. 1986;14(6):355-63
pubmed: 3546666
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1986 Mar;93(3):250-4
pubmed: 3964600
Obstet Gynecol. 1973 Mar;41(3):355-63
pubmed: 4688253
Science. 1981 Jul 10;213(4504):220-2
pubmed: 6166045
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982 Dec 15;144(8):950-8
pubmed: 7148927
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1982 Nov;89(11):900-3
pubmed: 7171496
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1981 Dec;88(12):1233-40
pubmed: 7306477
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981 Jan;139(1):33-7
pubmed: 7457517
Br Heart J. 1994 May;71(5):422-30
pubmed: 8011405
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998 Jan;52 Suppl 1:S5-15
pubmed: 9511014
J Hypertens. 1998 Nov;16(11):1641-50
pubmed: 9856365