Skip to main content
Log in

Vibroacoustic stimulation and modified fetal biophysical profile for early intrapartum fetal assessment

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy of vibroacoustic stimulation (VAS) and modified fetal biophysical profile (mFBP) for early intrapartum fetal assessment and prediction of adverse perinatal outcome.

Methods

In this prospective study, 210 women who were in latent phase of labor at the time of admission to the labor unit were subjected to VAS/mFBP, in which fetal startle response and fetal heart acceleration under combined B/M mode ultrasonography following VAS were observed. The results of VAS/mFBP were correlated with adverse perinatal outcome. Standard “fourfold” format was used to calculate various diagnostic values.

Results

Mean testing time was 4.86+0.72 min. Of the 210 fetuses subjected to VAS/ mFBP, 200 (95.2%) were reactive and 10 (4.8%) nonreactive. There were 198 (94.3%) favorable and 12 (5.7%) adverse perinatal outcomes. VAS/mFBP had: sensitivity 66.7%, specificity 99.0%, positive predictive value 80.0%, negative predictive value 98.0%, and accuracy 97.2%.

Conclusions

Because of its simplicity, ease of administration, short testing time, noninvasiveness, and high accuracy VAS/mFBP for early intrapartum fetal assessment is a reliable diagnostic approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Blix E, Oian P. Labor admission test: an assessment of the test’s value as screening for fetal distress in labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001; 80(8): 738–743.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Impey L, Reynolds M, MacQuillan K, Gates S, Murphy J, Sheil O. Admission cardiotocography: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2003; 361(9356): 465–470.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tannirandorn Y, Wacharaprechanont T, Phaosavasdi S. Fetal acoustic stimulation for rapid intrapartum assessment of fetal well-being. J Med Assoc Thai. 1993; 76(11): 606–612.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Baron C, Morgan MA, Garite TJ. The impact of amniotic fluid volume assessed intrapartum on perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 173(1): 167–174.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Chauhan SP, Cowan BD, Magann EF, Roberts WE, Morrison JC, Martin JN Jr. Intrapartum amniotic fluid index a poor diagnostic test for adverse perinatal outcome. J Reprod Med. 1996; 41(11): 860–866.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chauhan SP, Sanderson M, Hendrix NW, et al. Perinatal outcome and amniotic fluid index in the antepartum and intrapartum periods: A meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 181(6): 1473–1478.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Moses J, Doherty DA, Magann EF, Chauhan SP, Morrison JC. A randomized clinical trial of the intrapartum assessment of amniotic fluid volume: amniotic fluid index versus the single deepest pocket technique. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190(6): 1564–1569.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim SY, Khandelwal M, Gaughan JP, Agar MH, Reece EA. Is the intrapartum biophysical profile useful? Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 102(3): 471–476.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Inglis SR, Druzin ML, Wagner WE, Koqut E. The use of vibroacoustic stimulation during the abnormal or equivocal biophysical profile. Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 82: 371–374.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Petrovic O, Frkovic A, Matejcic N. Fetal biophysical profile and vibratory acoustic stimulation in high-risk pregnancies. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1995; 50(1): 11–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tongsong T, Piyamongkol W, Anantachote A, Pulphutapong K. The rapid biophysical profile for assessment of fetal well-being. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 1999; 25(6): 431–436.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Pinette MG, Blackstone J, Wax JR, Cartin A. Using fetal acoustic stimulation to shorten the biophysical profile. J Clin Ultrasound. 2005; 33(5): 223–225.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Papadopoulos VG, Decavalas GO, Kondakis XG, Beratis NG. Vibroacoustic stimulation in abnormal biophysical profile: verification of facilitation of fetal well-being. Early Hum Dev. 2007; 83(3): 191–197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tongprasert F, Jinpala S, Srisupandit K, Tongsong T. The rapid biophysical profile for early intrapartum fetal wellbeing assessment. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006; 95(1): 14–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Manning FA. Fetal biophysical profile: a critical appraisal. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 45(4): 975–985.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sarinoglu C, Dell J, Mercer BM, Sibai BM. Fetal startle response observed under ultrasonography: a good predictor of a reassuring biophysical profile. Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 88(4 Pt 1): 599–602.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Skupski DW, Rosenberg CR, Eglinton GS. Intrapartum fetal stimulation tests: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 99(1): 129–134.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Atul Kumar Sood.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sood, A., Singh, S. Vibroacoustic stimulation and modified fetal biophysical profile for early intrapartum fetal assessment. J Obstet Gynecol India 61, 291–295 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-011-0044-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-011-0044-5

Keywords

Navigation