DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20170935
Published: 2017-03-30

Comparison of the biophysical profile and modified biophysical profile in prediction of the fetal outcome in pregnancy induced hypertension

Amir Babansab Shaikh, Yogiraj Vaijanathrao Chidre

Abstract


Background: Pregnancy induces hypertension is one of the major causes of fetal morbidity and mortality. Biophysocal profile is one of the tests performed to predict the fetal outcome which though is simple, is time consuming and costly. This study was performed to compare the modified biophysical profile to the biophysical profile.

Methods: 200 patients over the gestation period of 34 weeks with pregnancy induced hypertension were divided into Group A consisting of 100 patients who were studied with biophysical profile (BPP) and Group B consisting of 100 patietns who were studied by the modified biophysical profile (MBPP).

Results: Mild hypertension was found in 80% of the cases while 20% of the cases had severe hypertension. Most of the patients were primigravida while very few of them were fourth gravidae. 78 patients had a score of BPP 8-10, out of which 7 had fetal distress while 71. Abnormal BPP score (<6) was observed among 22% of the patients in group A. Of these 22 patients, 9 patients had a score of <2 and all of them delivered by LSCS due to chronic fetal distress. Among the MBPP score, IUGR was seen among 4 fetuses who had a low score. Out of the 5 patients who had fetal distress, 2 fetuses were still born. Both BPP and MBPP were comparable to each other in terms of sensitivity, specificity and the predictive negative and positive values.

Conclusions: Since BPP requires more expertise than MBPP in terms of processing and time saving, MBPP can be used as a substitute to BPP.


Keywords


Biophysical profile, Modified biophysical profile, Pregnancy induced hypertension

Full Text:

PDF

References


Jamal A, Marsoosi V, Eslamian L, Noori K. A prospective trial of the fetal biophysical profile versus modified biophysical profile in the management of high risk pregnancies. Acta Medica Iranica. 2007;45:205.

http://www.fpnotebook.com/CV/OB/HyprtnsvDsrdrsOfPrgncy.htm#fpnContent-panel-id_2

Yogitha V, Sanjay SC, Shukla AK, Narayanan G. Modified biophysical profile as an antepartum surveillance test in high risk pregnancy: a prospective comparative study with conventional biophysical profile. J Res Radiodiag Teleradiol Imaging. 2016;2:18-25.

Gibb D. Foetal monitoring in practice. 3rd ed. Clinical assessment and practice. Canada. 2000;11:2-10

Manning FA, Platt LD, Sipos L. Antepartum foetal evaluation: Development of a fetal biophysical profile. Am J Obst Gyn. 1980;136(6):787-95.

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

Vintzileous AM, Campbell WA, Ingardie CJ, Nochimson DJ. The foetal BPP and it predictive value. Obstet Gynaecol. 1983;62:217-8.

Chamberlain PF, Manning FA, Morrison I. Ultrasound evaluation of amniotic fluid volume I the relationship of marginal and decreased amniotic fluid volumes to perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynaec. 1984;150(3):245-9.

Phelan JP, Ahn MO, Smith CV, Rutherford SE, Anderson E. AFI measurements during pregnancy. J Reprod Med. 1987;32(8):601-4.

Young D, Delaney T, Nogue K. Randomized trial of original, modified and selective fetal biophysical profiles. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 187: 143.

Miller DA, , Rabello YA, Paul RH. The modified biophysical profile: Antepartum testing in the 1990s. Am J Obst Gynecol. 1996;174:812-7.

Eden RD, Scifert LS, Kodack LD. A MBPP for antenatal fetal surveillance. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;71(3):365-9.

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;88:599-602.

Raparthy S, Sunitha C. Study of Oligohydramnios Cases by modified biophysical profile and their perinatal outcome. J Med and Dental Sci. 2014;13(9):62-9.