Export file:

Format

  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text

Content

  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

Wavelet filtering of fetal phonocardiography: A comparative analysis

1 Cardiovascular Bioengineering Lab, Department of Information Engineering, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
2 Laboratorio di Bioingegneria, Department of Information Engineering, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy

Special Issues: Computer Methods and Programs in Prenatal Medicine

Fetal heart rate (FHR) monitoring can serve as a benchmark to identify high-risk fetuses. Fetal phonocardiogram (FPCG) is the recording of the fetal heart sounds (FHS) by means of a small acoustic sensor placed on maternal abdomen. Being heavily contaminated by noise, FPCG processing implies mandatory filtering to make FPCG clinically usable. Aim of the present study was to perform a comparative analysis of filters based on Wavelet transform (WT) characterized by different combinations of mothers Wavelet and thresholding settings. By combining three mothers Wavelet (4th-order Coiflet, 4th-order Daubechies and 8th-order Symlet), two thresholding rules (Soft and Hard) and three thresholding algorithms (Universal, Rigorous and Minimax), 18 different WT-based filters were obtained and applied to 37 simulated and 119 experimental FPCG data (PhysioNet/PhysioBank). Filters performance was evaluated in terms of reliability in FHR estimation from filtered FPCG and noise reduction quantified by the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The filter obtained by combining the 4th-order Coiflet mother Wavelet with the Soft thresholding rule and the Universal thresholding algorithm was found to be optimal in both simulated and experimental FPCG data, since able to maintain FHR with respect to reference (138.7[137.7; 140.8] bpm vs. 140.2[139.7; 140.7] bpm, P > 0.05, in simulated FPCG data; 139.6[113.4; 144.2] bpm vs. 140.5[135.2; 146.3] bpm, P > 0.05, in experimental FPCG data) while strongly incrementing SNR (25.9[20.4; 31.3] dB vs. 0.7[−0.2; 2.9] dB, P < 10-14 , in simulated FPCG data; 22.9[20.1; 25.7] dB vs. 15.6[13.8; 16.7] dB, P < 10-37, in experimental FPCG data). In conclusion, the WT-based filter obtained combining the 4th-order Coiflet mother Wavelet with the thresholding settings constituted by the Soft rule and the Universal algorithm provides the optimal WT-based filter for FPCG filtering according to evaluation criteria based on both noise and clinical features.
  Figure/Table
  Supplementary
  Article Metrics

References

1. M. W. Trierweiler, R. K. Freeman and J. James, Baseline fetal heart rate characteristics as anindicator of fetal status during the antepartum period, Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 125 (1976),618–623.

2. V. S. Chourasia, A. K. Tiwari and R. Gangopadhyay, A novel approach for phonocardiographicsignals processing to make possible fetal heart rate evaluations, Digit. Signal Process., 30 (2014),165–183.

3. I. Habermajer, F. Kovács and M. Török, A rule-based phonocardiographic method for long-termfetal heart rate monitoring, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 47 (2000), 124–130.

4. M. Ruffo, M. Cesarelli, M. Romano, et al., An algorithm for FHR estimation from foetalphonocardiographic signals, Biomed. Signal Process. Control, 5 (2010), 131–141.

5. Y. Song, W. Xie, J. F. Chen, et al., Passive acoustic maternal abdominal fetal heart ratemonitoring using wavelet transform, Comput. Cardiol., 33 (2006), 581–584.

6. H. Tang, T. Li, T. Qiu, et al., Fetal heart rate monitoring from phonocardiograph signal usingrepetition frequency of heart sounds, JECE, (2016), 2404267.

7. J. Chen, K. Phua, Y. Song, et al., A portable phonocardiographic fetal heart rate monitor, ISCAS, (2006), 2141–2144.

8. J. P. Phelan and P. E. Lewis, Fetal heart rate decelerations during a nonstress test, Obstet.Gynecol., 57 (1981), 228–232.

9. F. Kovács, C. Horváth, A. T. Balogh, et al., Fetal phonocardiography-past and futurepossibilities, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed., 104 (2011), 19–25.

10. H. E. Bessil and J. H. Dripps, Real-time processing and analysis of fetal phonocardiographicsensor, Clin. Phys. Physiol. Meas., 10 (1989), 67–74.

11. P. C. Adithya, R. Sankar, W. A. Moreno, et al., Trends in fetal monitoring throughphonocardiography: challenges and future directions, Biomed. Signal Process. Control, 33 (2017),289–305.

12. V. S. Chourasia and A. K. Tiwari, Design methodology of a new wavelet basis function for fetalphonocardiographic signals, Sci. World J., (2013), Article ID 505840.

13. A. N. Pelech, The physiology of cardiac auscultation, Pediatr. Clin. North. Am., 51 (2004), 1515–1535.

14. G. Anastasi, S. Capitani and M. Carnazza, in Trattato di anatomia umana, Edi-Ermes, 4 (2010), 321–324.

15. Z. Comert and A. F. Kocamaz, A study of artificial neural network training algorithms for classification of cardiotocography signals, Bitlis Eren. Univ. J. Sci. Technol., 7(2017), 93–103.

16. R. Sameni and G. Clifford, A review of fetal ECG signal processing; issues and promising directions, Electrophysiol. Ther. J., 3 (2010), 4–20.

17. K. M. J. Verdurmen, C. Lempersz, R. Vullings, et al., Normal ranges for fetal electrocardiogram values for the healthy fetus of 18–24 weeks of gestation: A prospective cohort study, BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 16 (2016), 227.

18. A. Agostinelli, M. Grillo, A. Biagini, et al., Noninvasive fetal electrocardiography: An overview of the signal electrophysiological meaning, recording procedures, and processing techniques, Ann. Noninvasive Electrocardiol., 20 (2015), 303–313.

19. M. Sato, Y. Kimura, S. Chida, et al., A novel extraction method of fetal electrocardiogram from the composite abdominal signal, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 54 (2007), 49–58.

20. V. S. Chourasia and A. K. Tiwari, A review and comparative analysis of recent advancements in fetal monitoring techniques, Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng., 36 (2008), 335–373.

21. A. Sbrollini, A. Strazza, M. Caragiuli, et al., Fetal phonocardiogram denoising by wavelet transformation: robustness to noise, Comput. Cardiol., 44 (2017), 1–4.

22. M. Samieinasab and R. Sameni, Fetal phonocardiogram extraction using single channel blind source separation, ICEE 2015, (2015), 78–83.

23. A. Khandoker, E. Ibrahim, S. Oshio, et al., Validation of beat by beat fetal heart signals acquired from four-channel fetal phonocardiogram with fetal electrocardiogram in healthy late pregnancy, Sci. Rep., 8 (2018), 13635.

24. A. Jimenez, M. R. Ortiz, M. A. Pena, et al., The use of wavelet packets to improve the detection of cardiac sounds from the fetal phonocardiogram, Comput. Cardiol., 26 (1999), 463–466.

25. E. Koutsiana, L. J. Hadjileontiadis, I. Chouvarda, et al., Detecting fetal heart sounds by means of fractal dimension analysis in the wavelet domain, EMBC 2017, (2017), 2201–2204.

26. D. Messer, S. Agzarian and J. Abbott, Optimal wavelet denoising for phonocardiograms, Microelectron. J., 32 (2001), 931–941.

27. S. Vaisman, S.Y. Salem and G. Holcberg, Passive fetal monitoring by adaptive wavelet denoising method, Comput. Biol. Med., 42 (2012), 171–179.

28. A. Strazza, A. Sbrollini, V. Di Battista, et al., PCG-Delineator: an efficient algorithm for automatic heart sounds detection in fetal phonocardiography, Comput. Cardiol., 45 (2018), 1–4.

29. V. S. Chourasia and A. K. Mittra, Selection of mother wavelet and denoising algorithm for analysis of foetal phonocardiographic signals, J. Med. Eng. Technol., 33 (2009), 442–448.

30. V. S. Chourasia and A. K. Mittra, Most suitable mother wavelet for fetal phonocardiographic signal analysis, IJFET, 4 (2009), 23–29.

31. A. L. Goldberger, L. A. Amaral, L. Glass, et al., PhysioBank, PhysioToolkit, and PhysioNet: components of a new research resource for complex physiologic signals, Circulation, 101 (2000), 215–220.

32. M. Cesarelli, M. Ruffo, M. Romano, et al., Simulation of foetal phonocardiographic recordings for testing of FHR extraction algorithms, Comput. Methods. Programs Biomed., 107 (2012), 513–523.

33. C. Liu, D. Springer, Q. Li, et al., An open access database for the evaluation of heart sound algorithms, Physiol. Meas., 37 (2016), 2181–2213.

34. A. Misal, G. R. Sinha, R. M. Potdar, et al., Comparison of wavelet transforms for denoising and analysis of PCG signal, JCS, 1 (2012), 1–5.

35. B. Ergen, Comparison of wavelet types and thresholding methods on wavelet based denoising of heart sounds, JSIP, 4 (2013), 164–167.

© 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline
Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved