Performance of a Maternal Abdominal Surface Electrode System for Fetal Heart Rate and Uterine Contraction Monitoring from 34 to 37 Weeks

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to compare performance of a maternal surface electrode patch with ultrasound- and tocodynamometer-based monitoring to detect fetal heart rate and uterine contractility in late preterm labors.

Study Design Thirty women between 34^0/7 and 36^6/7 weeks' gestation were monitored simultaneously with a Doppler/tocodynamometer system and a wireless fetal–maternal abdominal surface electrode system. Fetal and maternal heart rate and uterine contraction data from both systems were compared. Reliability was measured by the success rate and percent agreement. Deming regression and Bland–Altman analysis estimated the concordance between the systems. Uterine contractions were assessed by visual interpretation of monitor tracings.

Results The success rate for the surface electrode system was 89.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.7–93.3), and for ultrasound it was 88.4% (95% CI, 84.9–91.9; p = 0.73), with a percent agreement of 88.1% (95% CI, 84.2–92.8). Results were uninfluenced by the patients' body mass. The mean Deming slope was 1 and the y-intercept was −3.0 beats per minute (bpm). Bland–Altman plots also showed a close relationship between the methods, with limits of agreement less than 10 bpm. The percent agreement for maternal heart rate was 98.2% (95% CI, 97.4–98.8), and for uterine contraction detection it was 89.5% (95% CI, 85.5–93.4).

Conclusion Fetal heart rate and uterine contraction monitoring at 34^0/7 to 36^6/7 weeks using abdominal surface electrodes was not inferior to Doppler ultrasound/tocodynamometry for fetal–maternal assessment.

Registration clinicaltrials.gov/February 20, 2017/identifier NCT03057275.

Key Points

• Monitoring the preterm fetal heart rate with surface electrodes is feasible.

• Preterm contractions can be monitored with surface electrodes.

• The technique was noninferior to standard external monitors.

Keywords

fetal heart rate monitoring - fetal ECG - abdominal fetal ECG - preterm labor - uterine contractility

Note

This study was presented in part at the Society for Reproductive Investigation Annual Meeting, Paris, France, March 14, 2019.

Authors' Contributions

M.H. had clinical oversight of the study. M.G. recruited participants and supervised their participation; W.R.C. planned the study, wrote the manuscript, and oversaw the data assessment and analysis. All authors edited and approved the final manuscript.

Publication History

Received: 08 June 2021

Accepted: 05 October 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
19 October 2021

Article published online:
28 November 2021

• References

• 1 Harrison MS, Goldenberg RL. Global burden of prematurity. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 21 (02) 74-79
• 2 Afors K, Chandraharan E. Use of continuous electronic fetal monitoring in a preterm fetus: clinical dilemmas and recommendations for practice. J Pregnancy 2011; 2011: 848794
• 3 ACOG Practice Bulletin No. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 106: Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (01) 192-202
• 4 Devane D, Lalor J, Bonnar J. The use of intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring: a national survey. Ir Med J 2007; 100 (02) 360-362
• 5 Brocato B, Lewis D, Mulekar M, Baker S. Obesity's impact on intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019; 32 (01) 92-94
• 6 Cohen WR, Hayes-Gill B. Influence of maternal body mass index on accuracy and reliability of external fetal monitoring techniques. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2014; 93 (06) 590-595
• 7 Hill MG, Wood SL, Anyaegbunam U, Cohen WR, Hayes-Gill B. Performance of a condensed electrode patch compared to a diffuse electrode array for transabdominal fetal heart rate and uterine contraction monitoring: a preliminary report. Am J Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2015; 2: 89-95
• 8 Hayes-Gill B, Hassan S, Mirza F. et al. Accuracy and reliability of uterine contraction identification using abdominal surface electrodes. Clin Med Insights Womens Health 2012; 5: 65-75
• 9 Cohen WR, Ommani S, Hassan S. et al. Accuracy and reliability of fetal heart rate monitoring using maternal abdominal surface electrodes. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012; 91 (11) 1306-1313
• 10 Hayes-Gill BR, Martin TRP, Liu C, Cohen WR. Relative accuracy of computerized intrapartum fetal heart rate pattern recognition by ultrasound and abdominal electrocardiogram detection. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2020; 99 (03) 413-422
• 11 Flight L, Julious SA. Practical guide to sample size calculations: non-inferiority and equivalence trials. Pharm Stat 2016; 15 (01) 80-89
• 12 Deming WE. Statistical Adjustment of Data. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications; 2011
• 13 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1 (8476): 307-310
• 14 Hesterberg T. Bootstrap. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat 2011; 3: 497-526
• 15 Vlemminx MWC, Rabotti C, van der Hout-van der Jagt MB, Oei SG. Clinical use of electrohysterography during term labor: a systematic review on diagnostic value, advantages, and limitations. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2018; 73 (05) 303-324
• 16 Clifford G, Sameni R, Ward J, Robinson J, Wolfberg AJ. Clinically accurate fetal ECG parameters acquired from maternal abdominal sensors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205 (01) 47.e1-47.e5
• 17 Peters M, Crowe J, Piéri JF. et al. Monitoring the fetal heart non-invasively: a review of methods. J Perinat Med 2001; 29 (05) 408-416
• 18 Reinhard J, Hayes-Gill BR, Yi Q, Hatzmann H, Schiermeier S. Comparison of non-invasive fetal electrocardiogram to Doppler cardiotocogram during the 1st stage of labor. J Perinat Med 2010; 38 (02) 179-185
• 19 Sameni R, Clifford GD. A review of fetal ECG signal processing; issues and promising directions. Open Pacing Electrophysiol Ther J 2010; 3: 4-20
• 20 Jaros R, Martinek R, Kahankova R. Non-adaptive methods for fetal ECG signal processing: a review and appraisal. Sensors (Basel) 2018; 18 (11) 3468-3482
• 21 Stampalija T, Signaroldi M, Mastroianni C. et al. Fetal and maternal heart rate confusion during intra-partum monitoring: comparison of trans-abdominal fetal electrocardiogram and Doppler telemetry. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 25 (08) 1517-1520
• 22 Sherer DM, Dalloul M, Pierre N, Abulafia O. Intrapartum repetitive maternal heart rate deceleration pattern simulating nonreassuring fetal status. Am J Perinatol 2005; 22 (03) 165-167
• 23 Graatsma EM, Miller J, Mulder EJ, Harman C, Baschat AA, Visser GH. Maternal body mass index does not affect performance of fetal electrocardiography. Am J Perinatol 2010; 27 (07) 573-577
• 24 Fruhman G, Gavard JA, McCormick K, Wilson-Griffin J, Amon E, Gross GA. Standard external Doppler fetal heart tracings versus external fetal electrocardiogram in very preterm gestation: a pilot study. AJP Rep 2016; 6 (04) e378-e383
• 25 Hofmeyr F, Groenewald CA, Nel DG. et al; PASS Network. Fetal heart rate patterns at 20 to 24 weeks gestation as recorded by fetal electrocardiography. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 27 (07) 714-718
• 26 Graatsma EM, Jacod BC, van Egmond LAJ, Mulder EJH, Visser GHA. Fetal electrocardiography: feasibility of long-term fetal heart rate recordings. BJOG 2009; 116 (02) 334-337 , discussion 337–338
• 27 Pervolaraki E, Anderson RA, Benson AP. et al. Antenatal architecture and activity of the human heart. Interface Focus 2013; 3 (02) 20120065
• 28 Echeverría JC, Hayes-Gill BR, Crowe JA, Woolfson MS, Croaker GDH. Detrended fluctuation analysis: a suitable method for studying fetal heart rate variability?. Physiol Meas 2004; 25 (03) 763-774