Pregnancy heart monitor skin#

We hypothesized that afECG-derived FHR data are at least as accurate and reliable as those obtained from ultrasound-based devices for the detection of the FHR during labor. Assessment of uterine contractility is described in a separate communication. We compared the relative accuracy and reliability of the afECG technique and traditional ultrasound FHR detection against internal monitoring when the three techniques were used simultaneously. From the voltages detected on the abdomen, the device calculates the FHR and measures uterine contractility noninvasively. The AN24 monitor (Monica Healthcare Ltd., Nottingham, UK) uses five ECG electrodes applied to the maternal abdominal wall (afECG).

Pregnancy heart monitor skin#

Also, the presence of monitoring instrumentation in the uterine cavity penetrating the fetal skin risks infection and fetal injury ( 5, 6).ДЄ technique for FHR and uterine contraction monitoring that has the potential to combine the accuracy and freedom from artifact of internal monitoring and the applicability, convenience and safety of external monitoring has been introduced. These factors limit its use, especially in early labor. Internal monitoring requires the chorioamniotic membranes are ruptured and the cervix sufficiently dilated to permit introduction of the FSE. Internal monitoring is more reliable and accurate than external ( 4), being less affected by artifact, maternal obesity, and fetal and maternal movement. It detects movement of the fetal heart using the Doppler principle sophisticated signal processing calculates the heart rate. The external FHR monitoring technique employs an ultrasound transducer held against the parturient's abdomen by a belt. That signal is used to calculate the heart rate from the R-R intervals of the fetal electrocardiogram (ECG). Internal monitoring detects fetal cardiac electrical activity through a fetal scalp electrode (FSE). Two modes of monitoring are commonly used: internal and external.

IntroductionД®lectronic monitoring of fetal heart rate (FHR) patterns is used in more than 85% of laboring women in the industrialized world ( 1- 3). Intrapartum fetal heart rate determination using maternal skin surface electrodes was superior in accuracy and reliability to monitoring that relied on Doppler ultrasound technology, and was less likely to display the maternal heart rate in place of the fetal heart rate. abdominal wall-acquired fetal electrocardiogram techniqueД®xternal methods for fetal heart rate identification were compared with monitoring with a standard scalp electrode.Compared with the fetal scalp electrode, fetal heart rate detection using abdominal fetal ECG was more reliable and accurate than ultrasound, and abdominal fetal ECG was less likely than ultrasound to display the maternal heart rate in place of the fetal heart rate. The confusion rate for ultrasound was 20-fold higher than for abdominal ECG (8.9 vs. The abdominal fetal ECG had a lower root mean square error than ultrasound (5.2 vs. Positive percent agreement was 81.7 and 73% for the abdominal fetal ECG and ultrasound, respectively ( pВ =В 0.002). The confusion rate indicated how frequently the devices tracked the maternal heart rate. BlandвЂ“Altman analysis determined accuracy. The positive percent agreement with the fetal scalp electrode indicated reliability. The fetal scalp electrode was the standard against which abdominal fetal ECG and ultrasound were judged. Three fetal heart rate detection methods were used simultaneously in 75 parturients. 75 women with normal pregnancies in labor at >37 weeks of gestation. Three urban teaching hospitals in the Northeast United States. Prospective open method equivalence study. Compare the accuracy and reliability of fetal heart rate identification from maternal abdominal fetal electrocardiogram signals (ECG) and Doppler ultrasound with a fetal scalp electrode.