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

  • Monica Agrawal Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow 226003
  • Nitu Nigam Assistant Professor, Department of Center for Advance Research (Cytogenetic Unit), King George’s Medical University, Lucknow 226003
  • Sangeeta Goel Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Career Institute of Medical Sciences & Hospital, Lucknow-226020
  • Naheed Zia Khan Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Hind Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow-226001
Keywords: Biophysical profile, Non-stress test, Fetal, Pregnancy, AFI, BPP


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.



Download data is not yet available.


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.

Original Research Articles