Why the study?
Do fetal heart rate parameters exhibit circadian and sex-related differences in uncomplicated pregnancies?
Do fetal heart rate parameters exhibit circadian and sex-related differences in uncomplicated pregnancies?
Fetal heart rate parameters exhibit significant circadian and sex-related differences, with lower basal heart rate and higher variability at night, particularly in male fetuses, which should be considered during fetal monitoring.
Ambulatory FHR monitoring captures circadian patterns in late pregnancy; leaves open whether findings alter perinatal surveillance.
BACKGROUND: Previous researchers have studied circadian changes in the fetal heart rate (FHR) on small sample sizes and in a strictly controlled environment. This study was undertaken to investigate these changes during the late second and third trimesters, using a portable fetal electrocardiogram recording device (Monica AN24) in pregnant women in home and hospital environments with unrestricted mobility. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of 54 pregnant women with uncomplicated singleton pregnancies between 25 and 40 weeks gestation. FHR recordings were made up to 16 h at home or in the hospital setting in the United Kingdom. FHR data over 90 min periods were averaged and the day (7:00 am-11:00 pm) and night (11:00 pm-7:00 am) data from the same individual were compared. Data were examined for evidence of sex-related differences. RESULTS: During the night, there was a significant reduction in basal heart rate (bFHR) and a significant increase in short term variation (STV) and long term variation (LTV) (P < 0.05). Basal FHR decreased (P < 0.002), whereas LTV increased (P = 0.014) with advancing gestation. Male fetuses showed greater day: night variation than females regardless of gestation (P = 0.014). There was a higher bFHR in fetuses monitored during the day in hospital (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that there are sex-, environment and time-related differences in the FHR parameters measured. These differences may need to be considered taken when interpreting FHR data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kapaya et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: