Beat-to-beat estimate of fetal cardiac time intervals using magnetocardiography: longitudinal charts of normality ranges and individual trends

References

• Peters M, Crowe J, Piéri JF et al. Monitoring the fetal heart non-invasively: a review of methods. J Perinat Med 2001; 29: 408–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis MJ. Review of electromagnetic source investigations of the fetal heart. Med Eng Phys 2003; 25: 801–10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taylor MJ, Smith MJ, Thomas M et al. Non-invasive fetal electrocardiography in singleton and multiple pregnancies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2003; 110: 668–78.
   Google Scholar
• Stinstra JG, Peters MJ. The influence of fetoabdominal tissues on fetal ECGs and MCGs. Arch Physiol Biochem 2002; 110: 165–76.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hosono T, Kanegawa T, Chiba Y, Kandori A, Tsukada K. The coincidence of fetal magnetocardiography and direct electrocardiography in a case of fetal atrial flutter due to intracardiac tumor. Fetal Diagn Ther 2002; 17: 331–3.
   Google Scholar
• van Leeuwen P, Hailer B, Bader W, Geissler J, Trowitzsch E, Gronemeyer DH. Magnetocardiography in the diagnosis of fetal arrhythmia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106: 1200–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Menendez T, Achenbach S, Beinder E et al. Usefulness of magnetocardiography for the investigation of fetal arrhythmias. Am J Cardiol 2001; 88: 334–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wakai RT, Strasburger JF, Li Z, Deal BJ, Gotteiner NL. Magnetocardiographic rhythm patterns at initiation and termination of fetal supraventricular tachycardia. Circulation 2003; 107: 307–12.
   Google Scholar
• Comani S, Liberati M, Mantini D et al. Characterization of fetal arrhythmias by means of fetal magnetocardiography in three cases of difficult ultrasonographic imaging. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2004; 27: 1647–55.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kahler C, Grimm B, Schleussner E et al. The application of fetal magnetocardiography (FMCG) to investigate fetal arrhythmias and congenital heart defects (CHD). Prenat Diagn 2001; 21: 176–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimm B, Kahler C, Schleussner E, Schneider U, Haueisen J, Seewald HJ. Influence of intrauterine growth restriction on cardiac time intervals evaluated by fetal magnetocardiography. Early Hum Dev 2003; 74: 1–11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Horigome H, Shiono J, Shigemitsu S et al. Detection of cardiac hypertrophy in the fetus by approximation of the current dipole using magnetocardiography. Pediatric Res 2001; 50: 242–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lowery CL, Campbell JQ, Wilson JD et al. Noninvasive antepartum recording of fetal S-T segment with a newly developed 151-channel magnetic sensor system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 1491–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stinstra J, Golbach E, van Leeuwen P et al. Multicentre study of fetal cardiac time intervals using magnetocardiography. Br J Obstr Gynecol 2002; 109: 1235–43.
   Google Scholar
• Van Leeuwen P, Geue D, Lange S, Hatzmann W, Gronemeyer D. Changes in the frequency power spectrum of fetal heart rate in the course of pregnancy. Prenat Diagn 2003; 23: 909–16.
   Google Scholar
• Van Leeuwen P, Lange S, Klein A, Geue D, Gronemeyer DH. Dependency of magnetocardiographically determined fetal cardiac time intervals on gestational age, gender and postnatal biometrics in healthy pregnancies. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2004; 4: 6.
   Google Scholar
• Comani S, Mantini D, Pennesi P, Lagatta A, Cancellieri G. Independent component analysis: fetal signal reconstruction from magnetocardiographic recordings. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2004; 75: 163–77.
   Google Scholar
• Comani S, Mantini D, Lagatta A, Esposito F, Di Luzio S, Romani GL. Time course reconstruction of fetal cardiac signals from fMCG. Independent Component Analysis vs. Adaptive Maternal Beat Subtraction. Physiol Meas 2004; 25: 1305–21.
   Google Scholar
• Della Penna S, Del Gratta C, Granata C et al. Biomagnetic systems for clinical use. Philosoph Magaz 2000; 80: 937–48.
   Google Scholar
• Comon P. Independent component analysis – a new concept? Signal Processing 1994; 36: 287–314.
   Google Scholar
• Bell AJ, Sejnowski TJ. Fast blind separation based on information theory. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Nonlinear Theory and Applications, Las Vegas, 1995, 43–7.
   Google Scholar
• Hyvarinen A. Fast and robust fixed-point algorithms for independent component analysis. IEEE Trans On Neural Networks 1999; 10: 626–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mantini D, Comani S, Pennesi P et al. Fetal Tailoring of the Independent Component Analysis to multi-channel fMCG recordings for an optimal reconstruction of the fetal cardiac signal. Biomed Tech 2004; 48: 186–8.
   Google Scholar
• Mitra SK, Kaiser F. Handbook for Digital Signal Processing. New York: John Wiley & Sons 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Comani S, Mantini D, Alleva G, Di Luzio S, Romani GL. Fetal Magnetocardiographic Mapping using Independent Component Analysis. Physiol Meas 2004; 25: 1459–72.
   Google Scholar
• Grimm B, Haueisen J, Huotilainen M et al. Recommended standards for fetal magnetocardiography. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2003; 26: 2121–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Burghoff B, Steinhoff U, Haberkorn W, Koch H. Comparability of measurement results obtained with multi-SQUID-systems of different sensor configurations. IEEE Trans Appl Supercond 1997; 7: 3465–8.
   Google Scholar
• Van Leeuwen P, Lange S, Klein A et al. Reproducibility and reliability of fetal cardiac time intervals using magnetocardiography. Physiol Meas 2004; 25: 539–52.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hosono T, Chiba Y, Shinto M, Kandori A, Tsukada K. A fetal Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome diagnosed prenatally by magnetocardiography. Fetal Diagn Ther 2001; 16: 215–7.
   Google Scholar
• Kandori A, Hosono T, Chiba Y et al. Classifying cases of fetal Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome by estimating the accessory pathway from fetal magnetocardiograms. Med Biol Eng Comput 2003; 41: 33–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pirie AM, Wright J. Prenatal diagnosis of the Wolf-Parkinson-White syndrome by fetal magnetocardiography. Br J Obstr Gynecol 2003; 110: 710.
   Google Scholar