Relation between modified biophysical profile and standard biophysical profile with neonatal outcome of high risk pregnancies

Document Type : Original Article


1 Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women's Health Research Center, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women's health research center, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

3 Student of Medicine, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.


Introduction: Nowadays, high risk pregnancies are one of the difficulties in gynecology that can result in many complications for fetus. In these pregnancies, different tests such as NST, BPP, OCT, Doppler sonography and etc can be used to evaluate fetus health status. Since standard biophysical profile needs more accuracy and skill, this study was performed to evaluate relationship between standard BPP and modified BPP with neonatal outcome, so that if there was significant relationship, we could use modified BPP as a replacement of standard BPP.
Method: this analytic-prospective study was performed on 106 high risk pregnant women at their third trimester referred to Emam Reza hospital in 2012, if they had no emergency problem leaded to emergent termination of pregnancy. To evaluate fetus health status, both standard BPP and modified BPP were spontaneously used. These tests were repeated once or twice weekly and if delivery was performed, last BPP score was compared with neonatal outcomes. Data analysis was performed by SPSS software (version 14) and Chi-square, and t-student tests. PResults: In the evaluation of last results of standard BPP, 88 cases (83.1%) of patients were normal BBP and 18 (16.9%) were abnormal. In modified BPP, 78 cases (73.6%) were normal and 28 (26.4%) were abnormal. There was significant relationship between neonatal outcome and standard BPP (P<0.05). But, there was no significant relationship between modified BPP and neonatal outcomes (P>0.05). There was significant relationship between modified BPP and standard BPP (P=0.003).
Conclusion: Regarding to significant relationship between modified BPP score and standard BPP score, so, modified method can replace the hard and time taking standard method, and in the cases of abnormal modified method, we can use standard BPP or other methods of fetus health evaluation.


  1. Sacat JR, Gibbs RS, Karlan BY. Danforth obstetric and gynecology. 10th ed. Philadelphia: lippincot Williams & Wilkins:2009.
  2. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Hauth JC, Rouse DJ, Spong CY. Williams obstetrics. 23rd ed. New York:McGrow-Hill;2010.
  3. Nageotte MP, Towers CV, Asrat T, Freeman RK. Perinatal outcome with the modified biophysical profile. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994 Jun;170(6):1672-6.
  4. Dayal AK, Manning FA, Berck DJ, Mussalli GM, Avila C, Harman CR,Menticoglou S. Fetal death after normal biophysical profile score: An eighteen-year experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Nov;181(5 Pt 1);1231-6.
  5. Manning FA. Antepartum fetal testing: a critical appraisal. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2009 Aug;21(4):348-52.
  6. Signore C, Freeman RK, Spong CY. Antenatal testing-a reevaluation: executive summary of a Eunice kennedy shriver national institute of child health and human development workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2009 Mar;113(3):687-701.
  7. Chamberlain PF, Manning FA, Morrison I, Harman CR, Lange IR. Ultrasound evaluation of amniotic fluid volume. I. The relationship of marginal and decreased amniotic fluid volumes to perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984 Oct 1;150(3):245-9.
  8. Manning FA, Bondaji N, Harman CR, Casiro O, Menticoglou S, Morrison I, et al. Fetal assessment based on fetal biophysical profile scoring. VIII. The incidence of cerebral palsy in tested and untested perinates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998 Apr;178(4):696-706.
  9. Manning FA, Snijders R, Harman CR, Nicolaides K, Menticoglou S, Morrison I. Fetal biophysical profile score. VI. Correlation with antepartum umbilical venous fetal pH. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993 Oct;169(4):755-63.
  10. Vintzileos AM, Gaffney SE, Salinger LM, Campbell WA, Nochimson DJ. The relationship between fetal biophysical profile and cord pH in patients undergoing cesarean section before the onset of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1987 Aug;70(2):196-201.
  11. Baschat AA, Galan HL, Bhide A, Berg C, Kush ML, Oepkes D,Thilaganathan B, et al. Doppler and biophysical assessment in growth restricted fetuses: distribution of test results. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006 Jan;27(1):41-7.
  12. Miller DA, Rabello YA, Paul RH. The modified biophysical profile: antepartum testing in the 1990s. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996 Mar;174(3):812-7.
  13. Chauhan SP, Doherty DD, Magann EF, Cahanding F, Moreno F, Klausen JH. Amniotic fluid index vs single deepest pocket technique during modified biophysical profile: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004 Aug;191(2):661-7.
  14. Soothill PW, Ajayi RA, Campbell S, Nicolaides KH. Prediction of morbidity in small and normally grown fetuses by fetal heart rate variability, biophysical profile score and umbilical artery Doppler studies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993 Aug;100(8):742-5.