1999Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology researchRequires access

The Rapid Biophysical Profile for Assessment of Fetal Well‐being

Theera Tongsong, Wirawit Piyamongkol, Athittaya Anantachote, Karune Pulphutapong

Open publisher page 13 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of the rapid biophysical profile (BPP), the combination of amniotic fluid index (AFI) and sound-provoked fetal movement (SPFM) detected by ultrasound, in predicting intrapartum fetal distress in high-risk pregnancies, compared with the nonstress test (NST). STUDY DESIGN: The prospective study of diagnostic tests was conducted on a total of 1,069 high-risk singleton pregnancies, undergoing antepartum assessment of both the standard NST and the new rapid BPP, including AFI and SPFM detected by ultrasound. Intrapartum continuous fetal heart rate (FHR) monitoring was performed in all of them. The diagnostic indices of the NST and the rapid BPP was calculated in term of predicting intrapartum fetal distress. RESULTS: The rapid BPP was a reliable predictor of intrapartum fetal distress with higher sensitivity and specificity. Its accuracy was better than that of the NST. The incidence of fetal compromise among positive, equivocal, and negative tests of the rapid BPP are 78.57, 15.82 and 0.9%, respectively, whereas the incidence among nonreactive and reactive NST are 31.63 and 2.52%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid BPP is an effective predictor of intrapartum fetal distress in high-risk pregnancies. It may suffice as an inexpensive and less time-consuming method of evaluating antepartum fetal well-being.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of the rapid biophysical profile (BPP), the combination of amniotic fluid index (AFI) and sound-provoked fetal movement (SPFM) detected by ultrasound, in predicting intrapartum fetal distress in high-risk pregnancies, compared with the nonstress test (NST). STUDY DESIGN: The prospective study of diagnostic tests was conducted on a total of 1,069 high-risk singleton pregnancies, undergoing antepartum assessment of both the standard NST and the new rapid BPP, including AFI and SPFM detected by ultrasound. Intrapartum continuous fetal heart rate (FHR) monitoring was performed in all of them. The diagnostic indices of the NST and the rapid BPP was calculated in term of predicting intrapartum fetal distress. RESULTS: The rapid BPP was a reliable predictor of intrapartum fetal distress with higher sensitivity and specificity. Its accuracy was better than that of the NST. The incidence of fetal compromise among positive, equivocal, and negative tests of the rapid BPP are 78.57, 15.82 and 0.9%, respectively, whereas the incidence among nonreactive and reactive NST are 31.63 and 2.52%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid BPP is an effective predictor of intrapartum fetal distress in high-risk pregnancies. It may suffice as an inexpensive and less time-consuming method of evaluating antepartum fetal well-being.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 13 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of the rapid biophysical profile (BPP), the combination of amniotic fluid index (AFI) and sound-provoked fetal movement (SPFM) detected by ultrasound, in predicting intrapartum fetal distress in high-risk pregnancies, compared with the nonstress test (NST). STUDY DESIGN: The prospective study of diagnostic tests was conducted on a total of 1,069 high-risk singleton pregnancies, undergoing antepartum assessment of both the standard NST and the new rapid BPP, including AFI and SPFM detected by ultrasound. Intrapartum continuous fetal heart rate (FHR) monitoring was performed in all of them. The diagnostic indices of the NST and the rapid BPP was calculated in term of predicting intrapartum fetal distress. RESULTS: The rapid BPP was a reliable predictor of intrapartum fetal distress with higher sensitivity and specificity. Its accuracy was better than that of the NST. The incidence of fetal compromise among positive, equivocal, and negative tests of the rapid BPP are 78.57, 15.82 and 0.9%, respectively, whereas the incidence among nonreactive and reactive NST are 31.63 and 2.52%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid BPP is an effective predictor of intrapartum fetal distress in high-risk pregnancies. It may suffice as an inexpensive and less time-consuming method of evaluating antepartum fetal well-being.

Key concepts: Medicine, Biophysical profile, Fetal distress, Nonstress test, Amniotic fluid index, Fetus, Obstetrics, Amniotic fluid

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Rapid Biophysical Profile for Assessment of Fetal Well‐being — Research Paper | ScholarLens