Electrohysterogram Signals from Patients with Threatened Preterm Labor: Concentric Ring Electrode Vs Disk Electrode Recordings

Recording of electrohysterogram (EHG) has emerged as a non-invasive method for monitoring uterine dynamics during pregnancy. Usually EHG is picked up using conventional disk electrodes placed on the abdominal surface resulting in a limited spatial resolution due to the blurring effect of the volume conductor. In this respect, concentric ring electrodes have been proposed to pick up uterine myoelectrical activity in term patients so as to improve spatial resolution and to reduce physiological interferences embedded in these records. The aim of the present work is to check the feasibility of recording EHG signals using concentric ring electrodes (BC-EHG) in patients with threatened preterm labor and to compare their capability to discriminate true preterm labor from false alarms with that of conventional EHG bipolar recording. For this purpose, 50 sessions with simultaneous EHG recordings with conventional disk electrodes and concentric ring electrodes were conducted in 26 patients. Compared to conventional bipolar EHG recording, the BCEHG presents smaller amplitude and similar spectral characteristics. Statistically significant differences between women who delivered preterm and those that delivered at term were found for both the average peakpeak amplitude and the dominant frequency in the frequency range 0.2-1 Hz from BC-EHG recordings. Nonetheless no EHG parameter from simultaneous conventional bipolar recording showed statistically significant differences. These results suggest superior performance of BC-EHG recordings in patients with threatened preterm labor for discriminating true preterm labor from term labor.

[1]  R. Garfield,et al.  Electrical Activity of the Human Uterus During Pregnancy as Recorded from the Abdominal Surface , 1997, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[2]  Massimo Mischi,et al.  Inter-electrode delay estimators for electrohysterographic propagation analysis , 2009, Physiological measurement.

[3]  Yiyao Ye-Lin,et al.  Wireless sensor node for non-invasive high precision electrocardiographic signal acquisition based on a multi-ring electrode , 2017 .

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

[5]  G. Fele-Zorz,et al.  A comparison of various linear and non-linear signal processing techniques to separate uterine EMG records of term and pre-term delivery groups , 2008, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[6]  Shalom Darmanjian,et al.  Monitoring uterine activity during labor: a comparison of 3 methods. , 2012, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

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

[8]  Dario Farina,et al.  Concentric-ring electrode systems for noninvasive detection of single motor unit activity , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[9]  Sandy Rihana,et al.  Preterm labour detection by use of a biophysical marker: the uterine electrical activity , 2007, BMC pregnancy and childbirth.

[10]  M. Lucovnik,et al.  Noninvasive uterine electromyography for prediction of preterm delivery. , 2011, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

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

[12]  Holger Maul,et al.  Monitoring the progress of pregnancy and labor using electromyography. , 2009, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[13]  Ana Pilar Betran,et al.  The worldwide incidence of preterm birth: a systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity. , 2010, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[14]  G. Prats-Boluda,et al.  Comparison of non-invasive electrohysterographic recording techniques for monitoring uterine dynamics. , 2013, Medical engineering & physics.

[15]  G. Saade,et al.  Comparing uterine electromyography activity of antepartum patients versus term labor patients. , 2005, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[16]  Javier Garcia-Casado,et al.  Feasibility and Analysis of Bipolar Concentric Recording of Electrohysterogram with Flexible Active Electrode , 2014, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[17]  William L. Maner,et al.  Identification of Human Term and Preterm Labor using Artificial Neural Networks on Uterine Electromyography Data , 2007, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[18]  Massimo Mischi,et al.  Two-dimensional estimation of the electrohysterographic conduction velocity , 2010, 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology.

[19]  A. Miles,et al.  Correlation of external and internal monitoring of uterine activity in a cohort of term patients. , 2001, American journal of perinatology.

[20]  Dorothee E. Marossero,et al.  Spatiotemporal electrohysterography patterns in normal and arrested labor. , 2009, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[21]  Massimo Mischi,et al.  Electrohysterographic propagation velocity for preterm delivery prediction. , 2011, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.