Comparison of halogen light and vibroacoustic stimulation on nonreactive fetal heart rate pattern

Fatemeh Rahimikian, Tahereh Rahiminia, Maryam Modarres, Abbas Mehran, Fatemeh Rahimikian, Tahereh Rahiminia, Maryam Modarres, Abbas Mehran

Abstract

Background: One of the first-line assessment tools for fetal surveillance is nonstress test (NST), although it is limited by a high rate of false-nonreactive results. This study was performed to investigate if external stimulation from vibroacoustic and halogen light could help in provoking fetal responsiveness and altering NST results.

Materials and methods: This is a clinical trial. Sampling was done from April to July 2010. One hundred pregnant women with nonreactive NST for 20 min were allocated in two groups: Vibroacoustic stimulated NST (VNST, n = 50) who received vibration from a standard fetal vibratory stimulator and halogen light stimulated NST (LNST, n = 50) who received a halogen light source for 3 and 10 sec, respectively. Results were compared together and then compared to biophysical profile (BPP) scores as a backup test. We used Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test to compare the variables in the two groups through SPSS version 14. P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results: Following stimulations, 68% nonreactive subjects in halogen light stimulation group and 62% in vibroacoustic stimulation group changed to reactive patterns. Time to onset of the first acceleration (VNST: 2.17 min; LNST: 2.27 min) and the test duration (VNST: 4.91 min; LNST: 5.26 min) were the same in the two groups. In VNST 89.5% and in LNST 87.5% of nonreactivity followed by score 8 in BPP. There was no significant relation between stimulus NSTs and BPPs.

Conclusion: Vibroacoustic and light stimulation offer benefits by decreasing the incidence of nonreactive results and reducing the test time. Both halogen light stimulation and vibroacoustic stimulation are safe and efficient in fetal well-being assessment services.

Keywords: Biophysical profile; Iran; fetal heart rate; fetal monitoring; halogen light stimulation; light; nonstress test; vibroacoustic stimulation; visual stimulation.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Steps and manner of subjects’ participation through the trial. NST: Nonstress test; VNST: Vibroacoustic stimulated NST; LNST: Halogen light stimulated NST; BPP: Biophysical profile

References

    1. Kliegman RM, Behrman RE, Jenson HB, Stanton BF. 18th ed. Saunders, an Imprint of Elsevier; 2011. [Last retrieved on 2012 Sep 07]. Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics, 96.2-Fetal Distress. Available from: .
    1. Rakel RE. 8th ed. Saunders, an Imprint of Elsevier; 2011. [Last retrieved on 2012 Sep 07]. Textbook of Family Medicine. Available from: .
    1. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Hauth JC, Rose DJ, Spong CY. 23rd ed. USA: McGraw Hill Medical; 2010. Williams Obstetrics; pp. 334–48.
    1. Gobbe S, Neibyl J, Simpson J. Biophysical profile technique of fetal evaluation, assessment of fetal well being. 6th ed. Churchill Livingstone, an Imprint of Elsevier; 2012. [Last retrieved on 2012 Sep 07]. Obstetrics: Normal and problem pregnancies. Available from: .
    1. Modarres M, Mir Mohammad A, Haghani H, Arami R, Rahnama P. The conformity of BPP and vibroacoustic stimulation results in fetal non reactive non stress test. J Tehran Univ Med Sci. 2006;64:46–54.
    1. Lin C, Vassal B, Mittendorf R. Is antepartum vibro acoustic stimulation an effective predictor of fetal acidosis? J Prenat Med. 2002;29:506–12.
    1. Alus M, Okumus H, Mete S, Guklu S. The effect of different maternal positions on non- stress test. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16:562–8.
    1. Bolnick J, Garcia G, Fletcher B, Rayburn W. Cross-over trial of fetal heart rate response to halogen light and vibroacoustic stimulation. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2006;19:214–9.
    1. Miller D. External stimuli. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2002;45:1054–62.
    1. van Heteren CF, Boekkooi PF, Jongsma HW, Nijhuis JG. Fetal habituation to vibroacoustic stimulation in relation to fetal states and fetal heart rate parameters. Early Hum Dev. 2001;61:135–45.
    1. Turitz AL, Bastek JA, Mary D, Sammel MD, Parry S, Schwartz N. Can vibroacoustic stimulation improve the efficiency of a tertiary care antenatal testing unit? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25:2645–50.
    1. Kenner C, Lubbe W. Fetal stimulation-a preventative therapy. Newborn Infant Nurs Rev. 2007;7:227–30.
    1. Pinette MG, Blackstone J, Wax JR, Cartin A. Using fetal acoustic stimulation to shorten the biophysical profile. J Clin Ultrasound. 2005;33:223–5.
    1. Papadopoulos VG, Decavalas GO, Kondakis XG, Beratis NG. Vibroacoustic stimulation in abnormal biophysical profile: Verification of facilitation of fetal well-being. Early Hum Dev. 2007;83:191–7.
    1. López Ramón Y, Cajal C. Response of the foetal pupil to vibro-acoustic stimulation: A foetal attention test. Early Hum Dev. 2011;87:199–204.
    1. Kiuchi M, Nagata N, Ikeno S, Terakawa N. The relationship between the response to external light stimulation and behavioral states in the human fetus: How it differs from vibroacoustic stimulation. Early Hum Dev. 2002;58:156–8.
    1. Caridi B, Bolnick J, Fletcher B, Rayburn W. Effect of halogen light stimulation on nonstress testing. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190:1470–2.
    1. Wilson JD, Adams AJ, Murphy P, Eswaran H, Preissl H. Design of a light stimulator for fetal and neonatal magnetoencephalography. Physiol Meas. 2009;30:1–10.
    1. Thanaboonyawat I, Wataganara T, Boriboonhiransarn D, Viboonchart S, Tontisirin P. Effect of halogen light in fetal stimulation for fetal well-being assessment. J Med Assoc Thai. 2006;89:1376–80.
    1. Rayburn B, Theele D, Bolnick J, Rayburn W. Selecting an external light source for fetal biophysical testing. J Reprod Med. 2004;49:563–5.
    1. Tatsumura M. Study on features of fetal movement and development of human fetus with use of fetal actogram. Nihon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi. 1991;43:864–73.

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera