Perinatal outcome with the modified biophysical profile. A prospective trial of the fetal biophysical profile versus the nonstress test in the management of high-risk pregnancies. Fetal biophysical profile score and the nonstress test: a comparative trial. A randomised controlled trial of simple compared with complex antenatal fetal monitoring after 42 weeks of gestation. A randomized clinical trial of daily nonstress testing versus biophysical profile in the management of preterm premature rupture of membranes.
Our purpose was to evaluate perinatal outcomes in high-risk pregnancies monitored with a modified biophysical profile.
                All non-insulin-dependent patients referred for antepartum fetal surveillance received a modified biophysical profile biweekly. A modified biophysical profile is a combination of a nonstress test and an amniotic fluid index. Patients with a singleton gestation and intact membranes were entered into a protocol of randomized backup testing for an abnormal modified biophysical profile. Those patients having a nonreactive fetal heart rate, significant variable decelerations, late decelerations, or an amniotic fluid index < or = 5.0 cm received either a contraction stress test or a biophysical profile immediately. Once randomized, a patient received the same backup test, when indicated, with subsequent testing.
                A total of 2774 patients had 17,429 tests with an uncorrected perinatal mortality rate of 2.9 per 1000. The overall incidence of an adverse perinatal outcome (i.e., perinatal death or nursery death before infant hospital discharge, cesarean delivery for fetal distress within the first 2 hours of labor, 5-minute Apgar score < 7, neonatal seizures or grade III or IV central nervous system hemorrhage) was 7.0%. When compared with patients having persistently normal modified biophysical profile, patients requiring a backup test had a significantly greater incidence of adverse perinatal outcome (9.3% vs 4.9%, p < 0.001, odds ratio 2.0, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 2.7) and small-for-gestational-age infants (5.2% vs 2.4%, p < 0.001, odds ratio 2.2, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 3.5). No differences in outcomes between patients randomized to a contraction stress test versus a biophysical profile could be identified either overall or in limiting the analysis to outcome after a negative last test. However, patients having contraction stress test as a backup test had a significantly higher rate of intervention for an abnormal test result than did those having a biophysical profile backup test (23.7% vs 16.6%, p < 0.002, odds ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 2.1).
                The modified biophysical profile is an excellent means of fetal surveillance and identifies a group of patients at increased risk for adverse perinatal outcome and small-for-gestational-age infants. There does not appear to be a significant benefit with the contraction stress test compared with the biophysical profile as a backup test. Further, the contraction stress test is associated with a higher rate of intervention for an abnormal test than is the biophysical profile. A randomized prospective trial study was developed to determine the diagnostic value of the fetal biophysical profile in relationship to the nonstress test. The diagnostic values of these tests were assessed in terms of the incidence of abnormal outcome. In addition comparisons between the positive and negative predictive values of each of these tests as well as the sensitivity and specificities of the test were reviewed. A total of 652 patients were entered into the study and a total of 1628 tests were performed. Of the group 279 pregnancies were managed by a biophysical profile protocol and 373 by the nonstress test protocol. Results of this study suggest that except for the negative predictive value in the sensitivities in the outcome parameters of low 5-minute Apgar scores the diagnostic values for all outcome parameters were consistently higher in the fetal biophysical profile as opposed to the nonstress test group. While higher, only two of the values, positive predictive value of overall abnormal outcome and negative predictive value of small for gestational age infants, were statistically significant. While this general trend suggests that the biophysical profile is more predictive in diagnosing fetal condition than the nonstress test, because statistical significance was not reached in all parameters further study is warranted. In this prospective blind study, 735 patients with high-risk pregnancies referred for antepartum testing of fetal well-being were randomly assigned to either a fetal biophysical profile scoring (375 patients) or a nonstress testing scheme (360 patients). Management was based on the results of antepartum tests, but the method of testing used was not disclosed. Fetal biophysical profile scoring resulted in a significantly higher positive predictive value in regards to low Apgar scores. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, although higher with fetal biophysical profile scoring, did not demonstrate significant differences when compared with the nonstress test. The negative predictive value between the two methods was similar. All major anomalies were detected during ultrasound scanning, whereas none of these anomalies were detected by heart rate testing alone. To compare the impact on perinatal outcome of two different protocols for antenatal fetal monitoring after 42 weeks gestation.
                A prospective randomised controlled trial.
                Liverpool Maternity Hospital.
                One hundred and forty-five women with singleton, uncomplicated pregnancies after 42 weeks of gestation.
                Random allocation to fetal monitoring by either: 1. a modified biophysical profile comprising of computerised cardiotocography, amniotic fluid index, and assessment of fetal breathing, tone and gross body movements; or 2. standard cardiotocography and maximum pool depth.
                Cord pH at delivery, number of abnormal monitoring tests, intrapartum management, mode of delivery and neonatal outcome.
                There were significantly more abnormal antenatal monitoring results in the modified biophysical profile group (47.2% vs 20.5%; odds ratio = 3.5, 99% CI = 1.3-9.1). There were no differences in cord blood gases, neonatal outcome, or in outcomes related to labour and delivery between the two groups, but a trend towards more obstetric interventions in the modified biophysical profile group was noted. Amniotic fluid volume after 42 weeks was more likely to be labelled as abnormal with amniotic fluid index than with maximum pool depth (44.4% vs 15.1%; odds ratio = 4.5, 99% CI = 1.6-12.8).
                The results suggest that after 42 weeks fetal monitoring with the modified biophysical profile does not improve pregnancy outcome as measured by umbilical cord pH, but is more likely to yield an abnormal result. The higher incidence of abnormal monitoring results in the modified biophysical profile group was likely to be caused by different methods of amniotic fluid assessment in the modified biophysical profile group (amniotic fluid index) and simple monitoring group (maximum pool depth). The use of amniotic fluid index as a test of fetal wellbeing in prolonged pregnancy may lead to more obstetric interventions with, as yet, unclear impact on the perinatal outcome. Our purpose was to evaluate the ability of 2 different antepartum testing modalities to predict infectious morbidity in patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes.
                During a 36-month period, patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes (at 23 to 34 weeks of gestation) were randomly assigned to either a daily nonstress test or a biophysical profile, after a 24-hour observational period. We used the original scoring system of Manning et al for the biophysical profile, with a score of </=6 considered abnormal. Nonstress test results were considered abnormal if the test was nonreactive or if the patient had late decelerations or significant variable decelerations; abnormal results led to further evaluation with a biophysical profile. Results of the last test before delivery were evaluated to determine whether infectious complications had been predicted.
                One hundred thirty-five patients were enrolled in the study. Demographics, pregnancy characteristics, and neonatal outcomes were similar. Neither the daily nonstress test nor the daily biophysical profile had good sensitivity for predicting infectious complications (39.1% and 25.0%, respectively). However, both had good specificity (84.6% and 92.6%, respectively). Positive and negative predictive values were 52.9% and 75.9%, respectively, for the daily nonstress test and 66.7% and 68.4%, respectively, for the daily biophysical profile. Cost was significantly higher in the daily biophysical profile group. Nonstress testing of patients at <28 weeks' gestation generally required a backup biophysical profile.
                Neither the daily nonstress test nor the daily biophysical profile had good sensitivity for predicting infectious complications after preterm premature rupture of membranes.
At present, there is insufficient evidence from randomised trials to support the use of BPP as a test of fetal wellbeing in high-risk pregnancies.
[Note: The three citations in the awaiting classification section of the review may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.]