A Comparison of Five Algorithms for Fetal Magnetocardiography Signal Extraction

  • Diana Escalona-Vargas
  • Hau-tieng Wu
  • Martin G. Frasch
  • Hari Eswaran
Short Communication
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Fetal magnetocardiography (fMCG) provides accurate and reliable measurements of electrophysiological events in the fetal heart and is capable of studying fetuses with congenital heart diseases. A variety of techniques exist to extract the fMCG signal with the demand for non-invasively obtained fetal cardiac information. To the best of our knowledge, there is no comparative study published in the field as to how the various extraction algorithms perform. We perform a comparative study of the ability of five methods to extract the fMCG using real biomagnetic signals, two of those methods are applied to real fMCG data for the first time. Biomagnetic signals were recorded and processed with each of the five methods to obtain fMCG. The R peaks of the fMCG traces were obtained via a peak-detection algorithm. From whole recording for each method, the fetal heart rate (FHR) was calculated and used to perform FHR variability (FHRV) analysis. Additionally, we calculated durations from the PQRST complex from time-averaged data during sinus rhythm. The five methods recovered the fMCG signals, but two of them were able to extract cleaner fMCG and the morphology was observed from the continuous data. The time-averaged data showed very similar morphologies between methods, but two of them displayed a signal amplitude reduction on the R-waves and T-waves. Values of PQRST durations, FHR and FHRV were in the range of previous fetal cardiac studies. We have compared five methods for fMCG extraction and showed their ability to perform fMCG analysis.

Keywords

Fetal magnetocardiography Signal processing Cardiac time intervals Variability analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors thank Mr. Doug Wilson for providing the OPMN code and Dr. E.H. Bolin for scoring the cardiac time intervals. Thanks to Donna Eastham, BA, CRS for her help in editing this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

Dr. Escalona-Vargas, Dr. Wu, Dr. Frasch, and Dr. Eswaran declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Ethical Standards of the Institutional and/or National Research Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

13239_2018_351_MOESM1_ESM.docx (42 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 41 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Comani, S., et al. Fetal magnetocardiographic mapping using independent component analysis. Physiol. Meas. 25(6):1459–1472, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Donofrio, M. T., et al. Diagnosis and treatment of fetal cardiac disease. Circulation 129(21):2183–2242, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elgendi, M. Fast QRS detection with an optimized knowledge-based method: evaluation on 11 standard ECG databases. PLoS ONE 8(9):e73557, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Escalona-Vargas, D., et al. Selection of reference channels based on mutual information for frequency-dependent subtraction method applied to fetal biomagnetic signals. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 64(5):1115–1122, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eswaran, H., et al. Fetal magnetocardiography using optically pumped magnetometers: a more adaptable and less expensive alternative? Prenat. Diagn. 37(2):193–196, 2017.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Golbach, E., et al. Reference values for fetal MCG/ECG recordings in uncomplicated pregnancies. In: Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Biomagn, Espoo, Finland, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Govindan, R.B., et al., Early maturation of sinus rhythm dynamics in high-risk fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2007. 196(6): p. 572 e1-7; discussion 572 e7.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leuthold, A., R. T. Wakai, and C. B. Martin. Noninvasive in utero assessment of PR and QRS intervals from the fetal magnetocardiogram. Early Hum. Dev. 54(3):235–243, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lew, S., M. Hämäläinen, and Y. Okada. Toward noninvasive monitoring of ongoing electrical activity of human uterus and fetal heart and brain. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2017.08.026.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li, R., M. G. Frasch, and H.-T. Wu. Efficient fetal–maternal ECG signal separation from two channel maternal abdominal ECG via diffusion-based channel selection. Front. Physiol. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00277.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCubbin, J., et al. Optimal reduction of MCG in fetal MEG recordings. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 53(8):1720–1724, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Preissl, H., C. L. Lowery, and H. Eswaran. Fetal magnetoencephalography: viewing the developing brain in utero. Int. Rev. Neurobiol. 68:1–23, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Quinn, A., et al. Antenatal fetal magnetocardiography: a new method for fetal surveillance? BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 101(10):866–870, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Strasburger, J. F., and R. T. Wakai. Fetal cardiac arrhythmia detection and in utero therapy. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 7(5):277–290, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Su, L., and H.-T. Wu. Extract fetal ECG from single-lead abdominal ECG by de-shape short time Fourier transform and nonlocal median. Front. Appl. Math. Stat. 3:2, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tadel, F., et al. Brainstorm: a user-friendly application for MEG/EEG analysis. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2011:1–13, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ulusar, U. D., et al. Adaptive rule based fetal QRS complex detection using Hilbert transform. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2009:4666–4669, 2009.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Uusitalo, M. A., and R. J. Ilmoniemi. Signal-space projection method for separating MEG or EEG into components. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 35(2):135–140, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Leeuwen, P., et al. Heart rate variability in the individual fetus. Auton. Neurosci. 178(1):24–28, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vrba, J. Multichannel SQUID biomagnetic systems. In: Applications of Superconductivity. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 61–138, 2000.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vrba, J., et al. Fetal MEG redistribution by projection operators. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 51(7):1207–1218, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vrba, J., et al. Removal of interference from fetal MEG by frequency dependent subtraction. NeuroImage 59(3):2475–2484, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wilson, J. D., and J. Haueisen. Separation of physiological signals using minimum norm projection operators. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 64(4):904–916, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesLittle RockUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and Department of Statistical ScienceDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Mathematics DivisionNational Center for Theoretical SciencesTaipeiTaiwan
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations