Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJeżewski, Janusz
dc.contributor.authorWróbel, Janusz
dc.contributor.authorMatonia, Adam
dc.contributor.authorHoroba, Krzysztof
dc.contributor.authorMartinek, Radek
dc.contributor.authorKupka, Tomasz
dc.contributor.authorJeżewski, Michał
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-03T09:57:24Z
dc.date.available2017-07-03T09:57:24Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.citationFrontiers in Physiology. 2017, vol. 8, art. no. 305.cs
dc.identifier.issn1664-042X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10084/117160
dc.description.abstractGreat expectations are connected with application of indirect fetal electrocardiography (FECG), especially for home telemonitoring of pregnancy. Evaluation of fetal heart rate (FHR) variability, when determined from FECG, uses the same criteria as for FHR signal acquired classically-through ultrasound Doppler method (US). Therefore, the equivalence of those two methods has to be confirmed, both in terms of recognizing classical FHR patterns: baseline, accelerations/decelerations (A/D), long-term variability (LTV), as well as evaluating the FHR variability with beat-to-beat accuracy-short-term variability (STV). The research material consisted of recordings collected from 60 patients in physiological and complicated pregnancy. The FHR signals of at least 30 min duration were acquired dually, using two systems for fetal and maternal monitoring, based on US and FECG methods. Recordings were retrospectively divided into normal (41) and abnormal (19) fetal outcome. The complex process of data synchronization and validation was performed. Obtained low level of the signal loss (4.5% for US and 1.8% for FECG method) enabled to perform both direct comparison of FHR signals, as well as indirect one-by using clinically relevant parameters. Direct comparison showed that there is no measurement bias between the acquisition methods, whereas the mean absolute difference, important for both visual and computer-aided signal analysis, was equal to 1.2 bpm. Such low differences do not affect the visual assessment of the FHR signal. However, in the indirect comparison the inconsistencies of several percent were noted. This mainly affects the acceleration (7.8%) and particularly deceleration (54%) patterns. In the signals acquired using the electrocardiography the obtained STV and LTV indices have shown significant overestimation by 10 and 50% respectively. It also turned out, that ability of clinical parameters to distinguish between normal and abnormal groups do not depend on the acquisition method. The obtained results prove that the abdominal FECG, considered as an alternative to the ultrasound approach, does not change the interpretation of the FHR signal, which was confirmed during both visual assessment and automated analysis.cs
dc.format.extent1702138 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoencs
dc.publisherFrontiers Media S.A.cs
dc.relation.ispartofseriesFrontiers in Physiologycs
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00305cs
dc.rights© 2017 Jezewski, Wrobel, Matonia, Horoba, Martinek, Kupka and Jezewski. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.cs
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/cs
dc.subjectDoppler ultrasoundcs
dc.subjectfetal electrocardiogramcs
dc.subjectfetal heart rate analysiscs
dc.subjectfetal state assessmentcs
dc.subjectfetal outcomecs
dc.titleIs abdominal fetal electrocardiography an alternative to doppler ultrasound for FHR variability evaluation?cs
dc.typearticlecs
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fphys.2017.00305
dc.rights.accessopenAccess
dc.type.versionpublishedVersioncs
dc.type.statusPeer-reviewedcs
dc.description.sourceWeb of Sciencecs
dc.description.volume8cs
dc.description.firstpageart. no. 305cs
dc.identifier.wos000403252900001


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2017 Jezewski, Wrobel, Matonia, Horoba, Martinek, Kupka and Jezewski. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2017 Jezewski, Wrobel, Matonia, Horoba, Martinek, Kupka and Jezewski. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.