Prenatal Foetal Non-invasive ECG instead of Doppler CTG - A Better Alternative?

产前胎儿无创心电图代替多普勒胎心监护——更佳选择?

阅读:1

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate foetal signal quality obtained using an antenatal foetal ECG system (Monica 24™) and compare it with Doppler ultrasound CTG monitoring (Corometrics® 250 series). Material and Methods: Seventy pregnant women (gestational age: between 20 + 0 weeks and 40 + 0 weeks) were examined using the Monica AN24™ system and also underwent Doppler CTG. The signal quality of both methods was compared and correlated with gestational age and pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI). Results: Overall, ECG had a signal quality of 77.4 % and CTG had a signal quality of 73.1 % (p > 0.05). In gestational weeks (GW) 20-26, the signal quality of ECG was significantly better compared to that obtained with CTG (75.5 vs. 45.3 %; p = 0.003), while in GW 27-36, the signal quality was better with CTG (72.3 vs. 83.0 %, p = 0.001). No difference in signal quality was found between the two methods after the 37th GW (87.7 vs. 86.1 %; p > 0.05). CTG showed a statistically significant correlation with BMI (rho 0.25, p < 0.05) while ECG showed no such correlation. Conclusion: The use of non-invasive ECG is particularly indicated in the early weeks of pregnancy, while CTG offers superior results during the vernix period. There was no difference in signal quality after the vernix period. The signal quality with ECG was found to be independent of BMI, while the signal quality of CTG deteriorated with increasing BMI.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。