Biophysical profile and modified biophysical profile in predicting the fetal outcome

V. G. Vanamala, Aruna Rachel, Sushil Pakyanadhan, Sudheep Abraham P.


Background: Baby’s well-being in utero is often done by using a cardiotocograph (CTG) machine, which assesses the baby’s heart beat pattern as well as the mother’s uterine contractions. However, lowered fetal movements sometimes may be fatal for the baby. Thus, the biophysical and the modified biophysical profile have been introduced.

Methods: 242 patients with over 34 weeks of gestation and with one or more risk factors were included in the study. After taking the demographic details, the patients were subjected to detailed physical and clinical evaluation. Modified BPP was done on all the patients. Index of acute fetal hypoxia the NST was done along with the cardiotocograph (CTG). Amniotic fluid volume was calculated.

Results: According to the fetal non-stress test, majority of the patients (70.7%) were reactive while 29.3% were non-reactive. Most of the patients had an amniotic fluid index in the normal range i.e. between 8 -<25, 18.6%) had an AFI value of <6 cm while 13.6% had between 6 - <8. Among the babies with reactive NST, non-reactive NST and AFI ≤5, the most common outcome was low birth weight.  APGAR score <7 was observed in 11.1%, 13.1%, 20% among Reactive NST, Non-reactive NST and AFI ≤5 respectively.

Conclusions: Present study shows that BPP and MBPP are both comparable to each other, therefore, MBPP, being an easier test can be substituted for BPP.


Biophysical profile, Fetal outcome, Modified biophysical profile, Pregnancy

Full Text:



Manning FA, Platt LD, Sipos L. Antepartum fetal evaluation: development of a fetal biophysical profile. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980;136(6):787-95.

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

Gadd RL. The volume of liquor amni in normal and abnormal pregnancy. J Obstet Gynecol. 1966;73(1):11-22.

Hon EH, Quilligan EJ. The classification of foetal heart rate. II a revised working classification. Conn Med. 1967;31(11):779-84.

Sadovsky E, Yaffe H. Daily foetal movement recording and foetal prognosis. Obstet Gynaecol. 1973;41(6):845-50.

Lee CY, Diloreto PC, Olane JM. The study of FHR acceleration patterns. Obstet Gynaecol. 1975;45(2):142-6.

Read JA, Miller FC. FHR acceleration response to acoustic stimulation as a measure of foetal well being. Am J Obstet Gynaec. 1977;129(5):512-7.

Vintzileous AM, Campbell WA, Ingardie CJ, Nochimson DJ. The foetal BPP and it predictive value. Obstet Gynaecol. 1985;62:217.

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 Gynaecol. 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.

Miller DA, Rabello YA, Paul RH. The MBPP: antepartum testing in 1990s. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;174(3):812-7.

Maurya A, Kushwah V. Modified Biophysical Profile and Fetal Outcome in High Risk Pregnancy. Sch J App Med Sci. 2014;2(1C):283-90.

Yogitha V, Sanjay SC, Shukla AK. 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(1):18-25.

Raparthy S, Sunitha C. Study of Oligohydramnios Cases by Modified Biophysical Profile and Their Perinatal Outcome. J Dent Med Sci. 2014;1(9):62-69

Jamal A, Marsoosi V, Noori LE. A prospective trial of the fetal biophysical profile versus modified biophysical profile in the management of high risk pregnancies. Acta Medica Iranica.2007;45(3):204-8

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