Use of Non-stress Test Alone Versus Biophysical Profile in Management of High-risk Pregnancy: A Comparative Study

Background: Choosing between the Non-Stress Test (NST) alone and the Biophysical Profile (BPP) in high-risk pregnancy management has garnered considerable attention. Both methodologies are crucial tools for assessing fetal well-being and guiding clinical decisions. The comparative effectiveness of utilizing NST alone versus integrating the more comprehensive BPP approach has become a pivotal research and medical discourse subject. This exploration delves into each approach's merits and potential limitations, shedding light on their respective roles in optimizing maternal and fetal care for high-risk pregnancies.

Aim of the Study: The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of non-stress tests and Biophysical profiles in the management of high-risk pregnancy.

Methods: This descriptive research was undertaken at the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics within Rajshahi Medical College and Hospital in Rajshahi, Bangladesh. The investigation spanned from January 2007 to December 2008, encompassing one year. The study comprised a cohort of 100 patients identified as high-risk pregnant individuals. These participants were segregated into two distinct categories, denoted as Group A and Group B. Each group consisted of 50 patients. Group A adhered to the Biophysical Profile Protocol (BPP), while Group B followed the Non-stress Test (NST) approach.

Results: The study included 100 high-risk pregnancy cases at gestational ages 32 to 43 weeks. The biophysical profile (Group A, n=50) and a non-stress test (Group B, n=50) were compared. Demographics and obstetric features varied slightly between groups. Group A's mean±SE age was 25±0.82 years; Group B's was 24.66±0.73. Parity and gravidity showed minor differences. Indications and gestational age determination methods differed between groups. Group A saw more postdated pregnancies (32.00%), while Group B had higher pre-eclampsia cases. Delivery methods also varied; Group A had 64.00% LUCS and 36.00% vaginal deliveries, while Group B had 68.00% LUCS and 32.00% vaginal deliveries.

Conclusion: Managing high-risk pregnancies requires vigilant care. Antenatal assessment's vital role in outcome prediction and timely intervention is highlighted by comparing two fetal assessment methods. Abnormal test results better predicted abnormal outcomes, emphasizing the need for larger-scale studies to enhance method evaluation.