Cited by 25ECG Monitoring and AnalysisNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control

Fetal cardiac time intervals in healthy pregnancies – an observational study by fetal ECG (Monica Healthcare System)

Wacker-Gussmann, Annette, Plankl, Cordula, Sewald, Maria, Schneider, Karl-Theo Maria, Oberhoffer, Renate, Lobmaier, Silvia M.·2018·Journal of Perinatal Medicine

Abstract

Background: Fetal electrocardiogram (fECG) can detect QRS signals in fetuses from as early as 17 weeks’ gestation; however, the technique is limited by the minute size of the fetal signal relative to noise ratio. The aim of this study was to evaluate precise fetal cardiac time intervals (fCTIs) with the help of a newly developed fetal ECG device (Monica Healthcare System). Methods: In a prospective manner we included 15–18 healthy fetuses per gestational week from 32 weeks onwards. The small and wearable Monica AN24 monitoring system uses standard ECG electrodes placed on the maternal abdomen to monitor fECG, maternal ECG and uterine electromyogram (EMG). Fetal CTIs were estimated on 1000 averaged fetal heart beats. Detection was deemed successful if there was a global signal loss of less than 30% and an analysis loss of the Monica AN24 signal separation analysis of less than 50%. Fetal CTIs were determined visually by three independent measurements. Results: A total of 149 fECGs were performed. After applying the requirements 117 fECGs remained for CTI analysis. While the onset and termination of P-wave and QRS-complex could be easily identified in most ECG patterns (97% for P-wave, PQ and PR interval and 100% for QRS-complex), the T-wave was detectable in only 41% of the datasets. The CTI results were comparable to other available methods such as fetal magnetocardiography (fMCG). Conclusions: Although limited and preclinical in its use, fECG (Monica Healthcare System) could be an additional useful tool to detect precise fCTIs from 32 weeks’ gestational age onwards.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/jpm-2017-0003

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wacker-Gussmann, A., Plankl, C., Sewald, M., Schneider, K.-T. M., Oberhoffer, R., & Lobmaier, S. M.
Affiliations
  • TUM Klinikum (DE)
  • Deutsches Herzzentrum München (DE)
Venue
Journal of Perinatal Medicine
Published
2018-08-28
Volume
46
Issue
6
Pages
587-592
ISSN
  • 0300-5577 (ISSN-L)
  • 1619-3997
OpenAlex
W2607528739
Cited by
25
References
22
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4
FWCI
1.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Perinatal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Keywords
fetal electrocardiogram, fetal heart rate, QRS complex, P wave, T wave, fetal magnetocardiography, maternal ECG, fetal heart rate monitoring, normal pregnancy
MeSH terms
Heart Rate Determination, Adult, Female, Fetal Heart, Gestational Age, Heart Rate, Fetal, Humans, Middle Aged, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Reference Values, Cardiotocography, Electrocardiography, Ambulatory, Young Adult, Signal-To-Noise Ratio

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review