Modified biophysical profile in high-risk pregnancy-association with neonatal APGAR score

Authors

  • Vemala Asgari Begum Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Narayana Medical College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
  • Reddygari Sruthi Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Narayana Medical College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
  • Sanikommu Venkata Sai Mamatha Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Narayana Medical College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
  • K. Kameshwaramma Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Narayana Medical College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20230802

Keywords:

Modified biophysical profile, High-risk pregnancies, Nonstress test, Amniotic fluid index

Abstract

Background: MBPP is used for evaluating fetal health and predicting fetal outcomes, which can help to minimize perinatal morbidity and death. It combines the non-stress test, an indicator of acute fetal hypoxia, with AFI, the second indicator of persistent fetal problems. Each patient has a non-stress test and an ultrasonic examination of liquor volume. A non-stress test that is reactive will reveal a healthy fetus. Hence, an attempt has been made to study the MBPP in high-risk pregnancies in predicting fetal outcome.

Methods: Hospital-based prospective clinical study on 200 high-risk pregnant women more than 37weeks of gestation are screened using a modified biophysical profile. High-risk factors in the study include Gestational Hypertension, Preeclampsia, IUGR, Post-term pregnancy, Oligohydramnios, PROM, and Anemia. The study was conducted in the department of obstetrics and gynaecology, Narayana medical college and hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh.

Results: In the present study, a total of 200 patients, 76.0% had both (NST, AFI) normal, 5.0% had both (NST, AFI) abnormal, 10.0% had Normal in NST and abnormal in AFI, 9.0% had abnormal in NST, and normal in AFI. The individual association between NST and AFI with the neonatal outcomes ie., APGAR at 1 min and 5min have been studied and have been found to be statistically significant.

Conclusions: In the present study, we concluded that MBPP is an effective antepartum fetal surveillance test in high-risk pregnancies in predicting perinatal outcome.

References

Marripalam SA. Comparative study of rapid biophysical profile and conventional biophysical profile in predicting perinatal outcome in high risk pregnancies. Gynecol J.2021;5(4):297-300.

Chalas E. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2020: A Clear Vision for the Future. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(6):1251-4.

Shah DM, Brown JE, Salyer SL, Fleischer AC, Boehm FH. A modified scheme for biophysical profile scoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;160(3):586-91.

Marzieh L, Ghomian N, Momeni M. The Relationship between Modified Biophysical Profile, Standard Biophysical Profile, and Neonatal Outcomes of High-risk Pregnancies. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2014; 5(3):9-10.

Sowmya KP, Gandhi R, Shri S, Patil BM. Modified biophysical profile in antepartum fetal surveillance of high-risk pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;23:152-9.

Devoe LD, Youssef AA, Gardner P, Dear C, Murray C. Refining the biophysical profile with a risk-related evaluation of test performance. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;167(2):346-51.

Nageotte MP, Towers CV, Asrat T, Freeman RK. Perinatal outcome with the modified biophysical profile. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170(6):1672-6.

Bardakci M, Balci O, Acar A, Colakoglu MC. Comparison of modified biophysical profile and doppler ultrasound in predicting the perinatal outcome at or over 36 weeks of gestation. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2010;69(4):245-50.

O'Neill E, Thorp J. Antepartum evaluation of the fetus and fetal well being. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2012;55(3): 722-30.

Nageotte MP, Towers CV, Asrat T, Freeman RK, Dorchester W. The value of a negative antepartum test: contraction stress test and modified biophysical profile. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84(2):231-4.

Hoskins IA, Frieden FJ, Young BK. Variable decelerations in reactive nonstress tests with decreased amniotic fluid index predict fetal compromise. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165(4):1094-8.

Freeman RK, Anderson G, Dorchester W. A prospective multi-institutional study of antepartum fetal heart rate monitoring. II. Contraction stress test versus nonstress test for primary surveillance. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982;143(7):778-81.

Eden RD, Seifert LS, Kodack LD, Trofatter KF, Killam AP, Gall SA. A modified biophysical profile for antenatal fetal surveillance. Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 71(31):365-9.

Sowmya KP, Mudanur SR. Modified biophysical profile in antepartum fetal surveillance of high risk pregnancies. IJRCOG. 2017;6(5):1854.

Patil SK, Ghregrat RH. Correlation of NST and AFV in antenatal fetal monitoring. Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 32(106):177-81.

Downloads

Published

2023-03-28

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles