Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile and Doppler Ultrasound in Predicting the Perinatal Outcome at or Over 36 Weeks of Gestation
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2010
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Karger
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Aims: In this study, modified biophysical profile (MBP) and uterine and umbilical artery Doppler ultrasonographic (USG) analysis were compared in predicting the perinatal outcome of pregnancies at >= 36 weeks. Methods: Three hundred and fifteen pregnant women were included in this study. Following routine examination, amniotic fluid index, uterine and umbilical artery Doppler indices were evaluated. Nonstress test (NST) was done and MBP was generated. Non-reassuring fetal status (NRFS), perinatal mortality, 5-min APGAR score and umbilical artery pH results were used in evaluating the perinatal outcome. Results: In groups with abnormal MBP and Doppler analysis the results of all parameters were bad. The statistical difference between the groups of normal and abnormal MBP and Doppler analysis was significant. In predicting the NRFS, MBP sensitivity was 60%, umbilical artery Doppler was 50% and uterine artery Doppler was 30%. In case of combination of findings of MBP and umbilical artery Doppler, the sensitivity rose to 70%. Conclusion: MBP was proved to be more significant than Doppler analysis in prediction of NRFS and perinatal results, but the sensitivity was increased when both were combined, so combination of MBP and Doppler analysis instead of MBP alone is more significant in antenatal assessment.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Modified biophysical profile, Doppler ultrasonography, Non-reassuring fetal status
Kaynak
Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation
WoS Q Değeri
Q4
Scopus Q Değeri
Q2
Cilt
69
Sayı
4
Künye
Bardakçı, M., Balcı, O., Acar, A., Çolakoğlu M. C., (2010). Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile and Doppler Ultrasound in Predicting the Perinatal Outcome at or Over 36 Weeks of Gestation. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation, (69), 245-250. Doi: 10.1159/000274488
