The role of modified biophysical profile in high risk pregnancies and fetal outcome

Monica Agrawal, Nitu Nigam, Sangeeta Goel, Naheed Zia Khan


Objectives: In a high risk population where chances of adverse outcome are relatively high and almost all the pregnancies are under strict monitoring, biophysical profiling further helps to identify adverse outcome and thus a basis for intervention. In this study, we aim to evaluate the role of modified biophysical profile in high risk pregnancies and fetal outcome.

Methods: Total 125 high risk pregnancies and were monitored for modified biophysical profiling from GA 34 weeks onwards. AFI<8 and non-reactive NST were considered as abnormal BPP. Apgar <7 at 5 min, MSL, NNU admission and neonatal death were considered as adverse fetal outcomes. Chi-square test was used to compare the data.

Results: Mean age was 24.32±4.37 (range 19-35) years. Mean age at enrolment was 35.23±1.78 weeks. A total of 41 (32.8%) patients had AFI<8.  Non-reactive NST was seen in 52 (41.6%) patients. Overall abnormal biophysical profile (NR-NST/AFI<8) was seen in 62 (49.6%) patients. Incidence of meconium stained liquor, Apgar<7 at 5m, NNU admission and NNU expiry was 15.2%, 20.8%, 26.4% and 4.0% respectively. NST and overall BPP showed a statistically significant association with all the outcomes however, AFI failed to show a significant association with NNU expiry. For all the outcomes NST had higher sensitivity as compared to AFI. Combined BPP showed a higher sensitivity than either of two components.

Conclusion: Modified BPP was found to be useful in identification of adverse fetal outcomes, thus highlighting its role in planning interventions to avert extreme events.



Biophysical profile, Non-stress test, Fetal, Pregnancy, AFI, BPP

Full Text:



World Health Organization Media Centre. Maternal Mortality Fact Sheet No. 348. Updated November, 2016. Available at:, last accessed on 19th January, 2017.

Agaro C, Beyeza-Kashesya J, Waiswa P, Sekandi JN, Tusiime S, Anguzu R, Kiracho EE. The conduct of maternal and perinatal death reviews in Oyam District, Uganda: a descriptive cross-sectional study. BMC Womens Health 2016;16:38.

Karimi P, Kamali E, Mousavi SM, Karahmadi M. Environmental factors influencing the risk of autism. J Res Med Sci 2017;22:27.

Naim A, Al Dalies H, El Balawi M, Salem E, Al Meziny K, Al Shawwa R, Minutolo R, Manduca P. Birth defects in Gaza: prevalence, types, familiarity and correlation with environmental factors. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2012;9:1732-1747.

Bamfo JE, Odibo AO. Diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction. J Pregnancy 2011; 640715.

Chamberlain G, Philipp E, Howlett K, Masters, eds. British Births 1970. H. Obstetric Care. London, U.K.: William Heinemann Medical Books, 1978.

Gibb DMF, Cardozo LD, Studd JWW, Cooper DJ. Prolonged pregnancy: is induction of labour indicated? A prospective study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1982; 89:292-295.

Wood S, Cooper S, Ross S. Does induction of labour increase the risk of caesarean section? A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in women with intact membranes. BJOG 2014;121:674-685.

Audette MC, Kingdom JC. Screening for fetal growth restriction and placental insufficiency. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017. pii: S1744-165X(17)30135-X.

Manning FA, Platt LD, Sipos L. Antepartum fetal evaluation: development of a fetal biophysical profile score. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980;136:787

Johnson JM, Harman CR, Lange IR, Manning FA. Biophysical profile scoring in the management of the postterm pregnancy: an analysis of 307 patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;154: 269-273.

Bresadola M, Mastro F, Arena V, Bellaveglia L, Di Gennaro D. Prognostic value of biophysical profile score in post-date pregnancy. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 1995;22:330-338.

Manning FA, Morrison I, Harman CR, Lange IR, Menticoglou S. Fetal assessment based on fetal biophysical profile scoring: experience in 19,221 referred high-risk pregnancies. II. An analysis of false-negative fetal deaths. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;157:880-884.

Nageotte MP, Towers CV, Asrat T, Freeman RK. Perinatal outcome with the modified biophysical profile. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170:1672-1676.

Akhter H, Guha K, Daisy KP. Amniotic Fluid Index in High Risk Pregnancies and Pregnancy Outcome. Dinajpur Med Col J 2010;3:1-5.

Asgharnia M, Faraji R, Salamat F, Ashrafkhani B, Dalil Heirati SF, Naimian S. Perinatal outcomes of pregnancies with borderline versus normal amniotic fluid index. Iran J Reprod Med 2013;11:705-710.

Sultana S, Khan MNA, Akhtar KAK, Aslam M. Low Amniotic Fluid Index in High-Risk Pregnancy and Poor Apgar Score at Birth. J Coll Phys Surg 2008;18: 630-634.

Tasneem SA, Kolur A, Ali MK, Qushnood F. A Study of Amniotic Fluid Index in Term Pregnancy. Int J Curr Res Aca Rev 2014;211:147-152.

Anand RT, Chauhan A. Relationship of the findings of colour doppler and non-stress test with the perinatal outcome among the cases of intrauterine growth restriction. MVP Journal Med Sci 2016;3:115-117.

Agarwal S, Agarwal V, Yadav S. Comparative study of amniotic fluid index in normal & high risk pregnancy complicated by PIH. Ind J Obs Gyn Res 2015;2:242-245.

Maurya A, Kushwah V. Modified Biophysical Profile and Fetal Outcome in High Risk Pregnancy. Sch J App Med Sci 2014;2:283-290.

Lalor JG, Fawole B, Alfirevic Z, Devane D. Biophysical profile for fetal assessment in high risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;1:CD000038.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 International Journal of Biomedical Research

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.