Uterine slow wave: directionality and changes with imminent delivery

Objective. The slow wave (SW) of the electrohysterogram (EHG) may contain relevant information on the electrophysiological condition of the uterus throughout pregnancy and labor. Our aim was to assess differences in the SW as regards the imminence of labor and the directionality of uterine myoelectrical activity. Approach. The SW of the EHG was extracted from the signals of the Icelandic 16-electrode EHG database in the bandwidth [5, 30] mHz and its power, spectral content, complexity and synchronization between the horizontal (X) and vertical (Y) directions were characterized by the root mean square (RMS), dominant frequency (domF), sample entropy (SampEn) and maximum cross-correlation (CCmax) of the signals, respectively. Significant differences between parameters at time-to-delivery (TTD) ≤7 versus >7 days and between the horizontal versus vertical directions were assessed. Main results. The SW power significantly increased in both directions as labor approached (TTD ≤ 7d versus >7d (mean±SD): RMSx = 0.12 ± 0.10 versus 0.08 ± 0.06 mV; RMSy = 0.12 ± 0.09 versus 0.08 ± 0.05 mV), as well as the dominant frequency in the horizontal direction ( domFx = 9.1 ± 1.3 versus 8.5 ± 1.2mHz) and the synchronization between both directions ( CCmax = 0.44 ± 0.16 versus 0.36 ± 0.14). Furthermore, its complexity decreased in the vertical direction ( SampEny = 6.13·10−2 ± 8.7·10−3 versus 6.50·10−2 ± 8.3·10−3), suggesting a higher cell-to-cell electrical coupling. Whereas there were no differences between the SW features in both directions in the general population, statistically significant differences were obtained between them in individuals in many cases. Significance. Our results suggest that the SW of the EHG is related to bioelectrical events in the uterus and could provide objective information to clinicians in challenging obstetric scenarios.

[1]  L. Yang,et al.  Assessment of Features between Multichannel Electrohysterogram for Differentiation of Labors , 2022, Sensors.

[2]  Alain Pumir,et al.  Review on EHG signal analysis and its application in preterm diagnosis , 2022, Biomed. Signal Process. Control..

[3]  Yiyao Ye-Lin,et al.  Optimization of Imminent Labor Prediction Systems in Women with Threatened Preterm Labor Based on Electrohysterography , 2021, Sensors.

[4]  S. Wray,et al.  Uterine Excitability and Ion Channels and Their Changes with Gestation and Hormonal Environment. , 2020, Annual review of physiology.

[5]  R. Garfield,et al.  Review and Study of Uterine Bioelectrical Waveforms and Vector Analysis to Identify Electrical and Mechanosensitive Transduction Control Mechanisms During Labor in Pregnant Patients , 2020, Reproductive Sciences.

[6]  Claudia Ivette Ledesma-Ramírez,et al.  Phase Entropy Analysis of Electrohysterographic Data at the Third Trimester of Human Pregnancy and Active Parturition , 2020, Entropy.

[7]  Javier Mas-Cabo,et al.  Robust Characterization of the Uterine Myoelectrical Activity in Different Obstetric Scenarios , 2020, Entropy.

[8]  Richard Staba,et al.  Emerging roles of network analysis for epilepsy , 2019, Epilepsy Research.

[9]  Yiyao Ye-Lin,et al.  Prediction of Labor Induction Success from the Uterine Electrohysterogram , 2019, J. Sensors.

[10]  R. Ruano,et al.  Potential use of electrohysterography in obstetrics: a review article , 2019, The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians.

[11]  G. Prats-Boluda,et al.  Uterine electromyography for discrimination of labor imminence in women with threatened preterm labor under tocolytic treatment , 2019, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[12]  C. Rabotti,et al.  Clinical Use of Electrohysterography During Term Labor: A Systematic Review on Diagnostic Value, Advantages, and Limitations. , 2018, Obstetrical & gynecological survey.

[13]  Chuan Chen,et al.  Dedicated Entropy Measures for Early Assessment of Pregnancy Progression From Single-Channel Electrohysterography , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[14]  G. Prats-Boluda,et al.  Electrohysterography in the diagnosis of preterm birth: a review , 2018, Physiological measurement.

[15]  Yiyao Ye-Lin,et al.  Prediction of labor onset type: Spontaneous vs induced; role of electrohysterography? , 2017, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[16]  H. Andersen,et al.  Why the heart is like an orchestra and the uterus is like a soccer crowd. , 2016, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  Roger Smith,et al.  A Hypothesis for Self-Organization and Symmetry Reduction in the Synchronization of Organ-Level Contractions in the Human Uterus during Labor , 2015, Symmetry.

[18]  Catarina Maria Martins Ferreira Couto de Sousa,et al.  Electrohysterogram signal component cataloging with spectral and time-frequency methods , 2015 .

[19]  Brynjar Karlsson,et al.  The Icelandic 16-electrode electrohysterogram database , 2015, Scientific Data.

[20]  M. Mischi,et al.  Propagation of electrical activity in uterine muscle during pregnancy: a review , 2015, Acta physiologica.

[21]  Philip Langley,et al.  Recurring patterns in stationary intervals of abdominal uterine electromyograms during gestation , 2014, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[22]  Huosheng Hu,et al.  The Usefulness of Mean and Median Frequencies in Electromyography Analysis , 2012 .

[23]  J Garcia-Casado,et al.  Enhancement of the non-invasive electroenterogram to identify intestinal pacemaker activity , 2009, Physiological measurement.

[24]  W. Maner,et al.  Physiology and electrical activity of uterine contractions. , 2007, Seminars in cell & developmental biology.

[25]  Javier Garcia-Casado,et al.  Noninvasive measurement and analysis of intestinal myoelectrical activity using surface electrodes , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[26]  Roberto Merletti,et al.  The extraction of neural strategies from the surface EMG. , 2004, Journal of applied physiology.

[27]  G. Saade,et al.  Predicting Term and Preterm Delivery With Transabdominal Uterine Electromyography , 2003, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[28]  U. Ulmsten,et al.  Direct intracellular injections for studying human myometrial gap junctions prior to labor , 1994, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[29]  C Marque,et al.  Uterine electromyography: a critical review. , 1993, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[30]  R. Garfield,et al.  Modulation of cell-to-cell coupling between myometrial cells of the human uterus during pregnancy. , 1992, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[31]  T. Kawarabayashi,et al.  Effect of indomethacin and aspirin on uterine activity in pregnant rats: comparison of circular and longitudinal muscle. , 1981, Biology of reproduction.

[32]  E. Hon,et al.  Cutaneous and uterine electrical potentials in labor; an experiment. , 1958, Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[33]  S. Larks,et al.  Wave forms of the electrohysterogram in pregnancy and labor. , 1958, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[34]  Catarina R. Palma dos Reis,et al.  Electrohysterography extracted features dependency on anthropometric and pregnancy factors , 2022, Biomed. Signal Process. Control..

[35]  Filipa E. Cardoso Uterine contractions clustering based on surface electromyography: an input for pregnancy monitoring , 2018 .

[36]  Marta Borowska,et al.  Early diagnosis of threatened premature labor by electrohysterographic recordings – The use of digital signal processing , 2016 .