Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Dec 16;16(12):e0256115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256115

The electrical heart axis of the fetus between 18 and 24 weeks of gestation: A cohort study

Carlijn Lempersz 1,2,*, Lore Noben 1,2, Sally-Ann B Clur 3, Edwin van den Heuvel 4, Zhouzhao Zhan 4, Monique Haak 5, S Guid Oei 1,2,6, Rik Vullings 6, Judith O E H van Laar 1,2,6
Editor: Gabor Erdoes7
PMCID: PMC8675734  PMID: 34914710

Abstract

Introduction

A fetal anomaly scan in mid-pregnancy is performed, to check for the presence of congenital anomalies, including congenital heart disease (CHD). Unfortunately, 40% of CHD is still missed. The combined use of ultrasound and electrocardiography might boost detection rates. The electrical heart axis is one of the characteristics which can be deduced from an electrocardiogram (ECG). The aim of this study was to determine reference values for the electrical heart axis in healthy fetuses around 20 weeks of gestation.

Material and methods

Non-invasive fetal electrocardiography was performed subsequent to the fetal anomaly scan in pregnant women carrying a healthy singleton fetus between 18 and 24 weeks of gestation. Eight adhesive electrodes were applied on the maternal abdomen including one ground and one reference electrode, yielding six channels of bipolar electrophysiological measurements. After removal of interferences, a fetal vectorcardiogram was calculated and then corrected for fetal orientation. The orientation of the electrical heart axis was determined from this normalized fetal vectorcardiogram. Descriptive statistics were used on normalized cartesian coordinates to determine the average electrical heart axis in the frontal plane. Furthermore, 90% prediction intervals (PI) for abnormality were calculated.

Results

Of the 328 fetal ECGs performed, 281 were included in the analysis. The average electrical heart axis in the frontal plane was determined at 122.7° (90% PI: -25.6°; 270.9°).

Discussion

The average electrical heart axis of healthy fetuses around mid-gestation is oriented to the right, which is, due to the unique fetal circulation, in line with muscle distribution in the fetal heart.

Introduction

In developed countries a fetal anomaly scan in mid-pregnancy is performed to check for the presence of congenital anomalies, including congenital heart disease (CHD). The importance of prenatal CHD detection has been highlighted by was previous research that found a reduction in neonatal morbidity and mortality when CHD was diagnosed prenatally [1, 2]. The introduction of a standardized screening program for the fetal anomaly scan in mid-pregnancy has led to an increase in prenatal CHD detection rates in the Netherlands up to 40–60%. However, 40% of CHD is still missed [3]. Ultrasound detection of CHD is difficult due to fetal body movements, and the small size and rhythmic movements of the fetal heart. Furthermore, detection rates depend on the experience of the sonographer, fetal position and BMI of the mother [413]. New diagnostic tools are needed to further increase the prenatal detection of CHD.

A tool might be the non-invasive fetal electrocardiogram (NI-fECG). NI-fECG enables the production of a 12-lead electrocardiogram by means of a standardized method [14]. ST-segment elevations are seen in ischemia and deviation of the electrical heart axis occurs in some cardiac malformations (e.g. hypoplastic right heart syndrome, atrioventricular septal defect) [1517]. The electrical heart axis is one of the characteristics which can be deduced from an ECG. It represents the median vector of the electrical activity through the heart during one cardiac cycle and provides information about the muscle distribution of the heart.

Verdurmen et al. found a right-oriented electrical heart axis in healthy fetuses [18]. This has also been described in term fetuses during labor and in neonates [19, 20]. The right-oriented electrical heart axis in healthy fetuses can be explained by the fetal circulation that has a unique physiology with multiple shunts to bypass the lungs, so that the right ventricle pumps 60% of the cardiac output, leading to a right ventricular dominance. After birth the pulmonary vascular resistance drops and the venous return to the left atrium increases leading to an increase in the cardiac output of the left ventricle. The left ventricle pumps against the high resistance systemic system once the placental circulation is eliminated [21]. With time the left ventricular muscle mass gradually increases and a leftwards shift of the electrical heart axis occurs. We hypothesize that the presence of certain CHD can already cause a deviated electrical heart axis in utero.

The aim of this paper was to determine reference values for the electrical heart axis in mid-term healthy fetuses.

Materials and methods

The study protocol was previously published by Verdurmen et al. [22] Ethical approval by the institutional review board of the Máxima Medical Center was obtained before enrolment (NL48535.015.14). Fetal ECG measurements were performed from May 2014 until September 2018 at the Máxima Medical Centre Veldhoven, The Netherlands, a tertiary care referral center for obstetrics and at ‘Diagnostiek voor U’ diagnostic center, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

Study population

Pregnant women carrying a singleton fetus without known congenital anomalies and a gestational age between 18 and 24 weeks of gestation were included. All patients were older than 18 years and gave written informed consent prior to the fetal ECG measurement.

Patients who did not understand the Dutch language well and/or had multiple pregnancies were excluded. If CHD was found later in pregnancy or after birth, the measurement was excluded from analysis.

The following data was gained prospectively: maternal gravidity and parity, as well as obstetric and general medical history. Parents received a questionnaire three months after birth to confirm that the child was healthy and did not have any congenital diseases. We chose this three-month cut-off point as at this age, all children in the Netherlands have had their second medical check-up by a doctor, who, among other things, evaluates cardiac health using auscultation.

fECG measurements and signal processing

Singular fetal ECG measurements were performed subsequent to the fetal anomaly scan. Women lay in a semi-recumbent position to prevent aortocaval compression. To yield six channels of bipolar electrophysiological measurements, eight electrodes were placed on the maternal abdomen in a fixed configuration. Two electrodes served as common reference and ground electrodes respectively (Fig 1; [23]). Before application of the electrodes the skin was washed with water and soap after which skin preparation was performed with medical abrasive paper (Red DotTM Trace Prep, 3M Health Care, Ontario, Canada) to optimize skin impedance. Each measurement lasted around 30 minutes during which fetal orientation was ultrasonographically checked at four fixed time intervals. After training by an experienced gynecologist or sonographer the researcher determined the fetal orientation by ultrasound. The fetal orientation was determined following a step-by-step plan in which the spine was taken as an identifiable landmark. The ultrasound probe was held only in a horizontal and/or vertical position for it to be reproducible and annotations were made about the position of the probe. To evaluate the accuracy of our orientation correction, the correct ECGs/VCGs of a single participant are compared to verify their consistency.

Fig 1. Measurement set-up of the non-invasive fetal electrocardiogram.

Fig 1

Eight electrodes were placed on the maternal abdomen in a fixed configuration. Two electrodes served as common reference (Ref) and ground (Gnd). The cartesian coordinate system as used in our analyses is displayed in the bottom right corner [23].

Fetal ECG measurements were performed with a 6-channel electrophysiological amplifier (Nemo Healthcare BV, The Netherlands) using adhesive Ag/AgCl electrodes (Red DotTM, 3M Health Care, Ontario, Canada) on the maternal abdomen. The measured electrophysiological signals were digitized at 500 Hz sampling frequency and stored on a computer for offline analysis.

This offline analysis consisted of a series of signal processing steps, aimed to suppress interferences and standardize the fetal ECG signals for fetal orientation, so that the fetal electrical heart axis could be measured. These signal processing steps have been described in more detail in Lempersz et al. 2020 [23]. In the first step of signal processing, interferences from the maternal ECG, abdominal muscles, and extracorporal sources were suppressed by an adaptive template-based method [24]. As a result, for each of the six recorded signals a fetal ECG signal was obtained, yet at relatively low signal-to-noise ratio. Because each fetus could have a different orientation with respect to the maternal abdomen and the recording electrodes placed on this abdomen, the fetal ECG signals not only changed between participants, but also within participants due to fetal movement.

The second step in the signal processing aimed to standardize for fetal orientation. To allow for such standardization, a fetal vectorcardiogram was calculated for every heartbeat first, combining the information from the six abdominal signals into a 3-dimensional fetal ECG complex [25]. This vectorcardiogram could subsequently be tracked over time, detecting fetal movements and correcting for them by rotating the fetal vectorcardiogram in 3-dimensional space. Finally, another rotation in 3-dimensional space was applied that corrected for the fetal orientation, which was assessed from intermittent ultrasound scans. For instance, if the ultrasound indicated that the fetus was in a cephalic position, the recorded fetal vectorcardiogram was rotated by 180 degrees to represent the fetal vectorcardiogram as if the fetus was in a breech position, mimicking the position used when making adult ECGs. Similarly, the fetus was rotated along the longitudinal axis as if the fetal back was orientated towards the back of the mother. The parts of the measurements of sufficient signal quality, closest to the performance of the ultrasound determining fetal orientation, were used to create the vectorcardiogram.

Finally, to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio, orientation-standardized fetal vectorcardiograms were averaged over multiple heartbeats to yield one fetal vectorcardiogram per measurement.

The orientation of the electrical heart axis was defined as the direction in which the vectorcardiogram had its maximum amplitude [25]. The latter direction was estimated as the average direction of the dominant vectors in the QRS complex, defined as the vectors from the point that the R-wave exceeded 70% of its maximum value until the point that it fell below 70% of the maximum value. The orientation of the fetal heart axis was expressed in degrees ranging from minus 180° to plus 180° and calculated in the frontal plane, where minus 90° is located superiorly.

Statistical analysis

The observed frontal angle was determined in the (x,y)-plane. The normalized coordinates (x˜,y˜) were calculated as the division of the originate coordinates (x, y) by their Euclidean norm x2+y2.

We calculated descriptive statistics (median with interquartile range (IQR)) on the normalized (x˜,y˜) Cartesian coordinates. We also reported the average frontal axis with 90% prediction intervals that would function as reference values. Prediction intervals are chosen because they account for the uncertainty in estimating the population mean and the random variation of the individual values [26]. The average frontal axis is a circular mean, therefore the maximum likelihood estimate (mle) of the mean direction parameter μ of a von Mises distribution will be used as the average frontal axis.

θ¯=atan2(S¯/C¯),whereC¯=1nj=1ncosθjandS¯=1nj=1nsinθj

The prediction intervals were calculated, using the lower and upper quantiles of the Von Mises distribution with the estimated parameters.

Statistical analysis was conducted with SAS (version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., NC, USA) and R (version 3.5.3, R Foundation, Vienna, Austria). Descriptive statistics (median with interquartile ranges) were used to describe baseline characteristics, using IBM SPSS statistics version 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill., USA).

Data are available upon request.

Results

A total of 328 patients were included. From these, 15 measurements were excluded due to missing or incomplete questionnaires and 23 measurements were excluded due to missing information on the fetal orientation. CHD was found in one neonate and a chromosomal disorder was present in three neonates as reported in the postpartum questionnaire, necessitating their exclusion. Of the remaining 286 inclusions (87.2% of the original 328 included patients), five measurements had to be excluded due to poor quality NI-fECG recordings. A total of 281/286 measurements were available for further analysis giving a success rate of 98%. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the study population. Fig 2 shows a flowchart of the included measurements.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of participants (N = 281).

Mean (± SD)
Age (years) 31.3 (± 4.0)
GA (weeks) 20.2 (± 1.3)
Nulliparous (%) 52.3
BMI (kg/m 2 ) 24.4 (± 5.4)

Abbreviations: GA = gestational age, BMI = body mass index.

Fig 2. Flowchart of the included measurements.

Fig 2

Fig 3 is an example of a fetal electrocardiogram, here one can see a clear QRS-complex.

Fig 3. Example of a fetal electrocardiogram.

Fig 3

Lead I and aVF. x-axis is time in seconds (s), y-axis is electric potential in microvolts (μV).

The median and interquartile range (IQR) of the x˜ coordinate was 0.347 (1.660) and that of the y˜ coordinate was 0.327 (0.956). Based on these normalized coordinates, the average frontal angle was determined at 122.68° (90% PI: -25.6°; 270.9°). Fig 4 shows the distribution of the orientation of the electrical heart axis of each fetus. The arrow shows the mean electrical heart axis with, in grey, corresponding 90% PI in the frontal plane.

Fig 4. Distribution of the orientation of the electrical heart axis plotted in a circle diagram.

Fig 4

Each dot represents one fetus. The arrow represents the mean electrical heart axis with corresponding 90% PI in the frontal plane in grey.

Discussion

Main findings

In this paper we present reference values for the electrical heart axis calculated from our cohort of 281 healthy fetuses at mid-gestation. We found the mean electrical heart axis of the healthy fetus orientated to the right (122.68°), which is in line with the distribution of fetal cardiac muscle mass due to the unique anatomy of the fetal circulatory system and findings from previous studies [1720, 27]. We found that the prediction intervals based on our cohort are wide, indicating a broad range wherein future observations will fall.

Strengths and limitations

The main strength of this study is the large group of participants and the low number of recordings excluded due to inadequate data quality. The latter shows that this technology has improved significantly compared to earlier reported research [2830]. This high success rate is an indispensable characteristic for any technology to be implemented in daily practice. However, the time needed to process the recordings is at this moment the limiting factor for the NI-fECG technology, which currently still takes place offline. Therefore, results are not yet readily available during the measurement. This can be solved by automatization of the signal processing algorithms in the future which can then be incorporated in the measurement hardware. Furthermore, a few factors can contribute to inaccuracies in the correction for the fetal orientation; inaccuracies in the correction for the fetal movement and inaccurate assessment of the fetal orientation and the time at which this assessment was made. To minimize these inaccuracies, we have used the ECG data that was recorded around the time that the fetal orientation assessment was done. Possible cumulative errors in the correction for movement will therefore be limited. As an extra check, the fetal orientation was determined multiple times per recording. Within a single patient, the correct ECGs/VCGs are compared to verify their consistency, which can act as an indirect evaluation of the accuracy of our orientation correction.

Interpretation

To our knowledge, this is the first study that determines reference values for the electrical heart axis in healthy midterm fetuses. Recent advances in the signal processing algorithms have made it possible to acquire information on the fetal ECG in the antenatal period in a non-invasive manner. This makes it possible to define reference values for the electrical heart axis in healthy fetuses in mid-pregnancy.

The electrical heart axis reflects the distribution of muscle mass in the fetal heart. In the fetal circulation with its three obligatory shunts and the high resistance pulmonary and low resistance systemic circulations, the right ventricle is dominant and pumps about 60% of the cardiac output. As a consequence the muscle mass of the right ventricle is greater than that of the left ventricle and this results in greater amplitude of depolarization together with decreased speed of depolarization on the right side [31]. Our results confirm this right oriented electrical heart axis in healthy fetuses. The next step towards determining the use of this parameter for screening purposes is to define the electrical heart axis in fetuses with CHD.

Fetal electrocardiography is an easy to use, non-invasive, safe technology with a minimal burden for the pregnant women. Further research towards the electrical heart axis in fetuses with different types of CHD is necessary to determine which defects are associated with a deviated fetal electrical heart axis. Then the NI-fECG could be performed in addition to the fetal anomaly scan around the 20th week of gestation as part of prenatal screening after automatization of the signal processing of the recording. A point of attention is the broad distribution of the electrical heart axis found in our cohort of healthy fetuses in mid-pregnancy. This resulted in wide predictions intervals [-25.6°; 270.9°] making the use of the electrical heart axis alone as a parameter for the screening of CHD less suitable. Future research towards ECG waveform and ECG intervals may add to the development of additional ECG parameters which could further enhance the prenatal detection of CHD.

Conclusion

Our results confirm that the mean electrical heart axis of healthy fetuses around mid-gestation is oriented to the right. The wide prediction interval for the frontal heart axis found in our cohort, is unfavorable for future implementation of this method for screening purposes. Further research towards the electrical heart axis in fetuses with CHD as well as additional ECG waveform and intervals may elucidate the role of fetal ECG as a screening parameter for the detection of CHD.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. TREND statement.

(PDF)

S1 File. Study protocol.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to ´Diagnostiek voor U´ diagnostic center, (Eindhoven, The Netherlands), N. Eijsvoogel, D. Aben, O. Hulsenboom, M. Sengers, J. Drinkwaard, C. van den Oord, M. van Wierst, L. Cornelissen, C. de Vet and M. van Bruggen for their cooperation and effort towards the recruitment of patients and their role in the data collection.

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because this was not included in the informed consent procedure participants signed for. Data are available from the Máxima Medical Center Institutional Data Access (contact via jolanda.luime@mmc.nl) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by The Dutch Technology Foundation STW (#12470), Stichting de Weijerhorst, Horizon2020 (#719500). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Cloete E, Bloomfield FH, Sadler L, de Laat MWM, Finucane AK, Gentles TL. Antenatal Detection of Treatable Critical Congenital Heart Disease Is Associated with Lower Morbidity and Mortality. J Pediatr. 2019;204:66–70. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.08.056 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Brown KL, Ridout DA, Hoskote A, Verhulst L, Ricci M, Bull C. Delayed diagnosis of congenital heart disease worsens preoperative condition and outcome of surgery in neonates. Heart. 2006;92(9):1298–302. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2005.078097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.van Velzen CL, Clur SA, Rijlaarsdam MEB, Bax CJ, Pajkrt E, Heymans MW, et al. Prenatal detection of congenital heart disease—results of a national screening programme. BJOG. 2016. Feb;123(3):400–7. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Allan L. Fetal cardiac scanning today. Prenat Diagn. 2010. Jul;30(7):639–43. doi: 10.1002/pd.2540 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.DeVore GR, Medearis AL, Bear MB, Horenstein J, Platt LD. Fetal echocardiography: factors that influence imaging of the fetal heart during the second trimester of pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med. 1993. Nov;12(11):659–63. doi: 10.7863/jum.1993.12.11.659 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Friedberg MK, Silverman NH, Moon-Grady AJ, Tong E, Nourse J, Sorenson B, et al. Prenatal Detection of Congenital Heart Disease. J Pediatr. 2009;155(1):31.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.01.050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Garne E, Stoll C, Clementi M. Evaluation of prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart diseases by ultrasound: experience from 20 European registries. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;17(5):386–91. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2001.00385.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Michelfelder EC, Cnota JF. Prenatal Diagnosis of Congenital Heart Disease in an Era of Near-Universal Ultrasound Screening: Room for Improvement. J Pediatr. 2009;155(1):9–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.02.057 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Pinto NM, Keenan HT, Minich LL, Puchalski MD, Heywood M, Botto LD. Barriers to prenatal detection of congenital heart disease: a population‐based study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(4):418–25. doi: 10.1002/uog.10116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Robinson J, Simpson L, Abuhamad A. Screening For Fetal Heart Disease With Ultrasound. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2003. Dec;46(4):890–6. doi: 10.1097/00003081-200312000-00021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Eastwood KA, Daly C, Hunter A, McCance D, Young I, Holmes V. The impact of maternal obesity on completion of fetal anomaly screening. J Perinat Med. 2017;45(9):1061–7. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2016-0048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hunsley C, Farrell T. The influence of maternal body mass index on fetal anomaly screening. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;182:181–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.09.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tegnander E, Eik-Nes SH. The examiner’s ultrasound experience has a significant impact on the detection rate of congenital heart defects at the second-trimester fetal examination. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 14.Lempersz C, Van Laar JO, Clur SAB, Verdurmen KM, Warmerdam GJ, Van Der Post J, et al. The standardized 12-lead fetal electrocardiogram of the healthy fetus in mid-pregnancy: A cross-sectional study. PLoS One [Internet]. 2020;15(4):1–12. Available from: doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232606 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sosi-Pallares D, Pileggi F, Cisneros F, Ginefra P, Portillo B, Medrano GA, et al. The mean manifest electrical axis of the ventricular activation process (AQRS) in congenital heart disease: a new approach in electrocardiographic diagnosis. Am Heart J. 1958. May;55(5):681–700. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(58)90006-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Brink AJ, Neill CA. The electrocardiogram in congenital heart disease; with special reference to left axis deviation. Circulation. 1955. Oct;12(4):604–11. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.12.4.604 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Neill CA, Brink AJ. Left axis deviation in tricuspid atresia and single ventricle; the electrocardiogram in 36 autopsied cases. Circulation. 1955. Oct;12(4):612–9. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.12.4.612 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Verdurmen KMJ, Hulsenboom ADJ, van Laar JOEH, Wijn PFF, Vullings R, Oei SG. Orientation of the electrical heart axis in mid-term pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;207(Dec. 2016):243–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.10.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Depasquale NP. Electrocardiogram, Ventricular Gradient and Spatial Vectorcardiogram During the First Week of Life. Am J Cardiol. 1963;12:482. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(63)90187-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Larks SD. Estimation of the Electrical Axis of the Fetal Heart. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1965;91:46. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(65)90585-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tissot C, Singh Y, Sekarski N, Sekarski N. Echocardiographic Evaluation of Ventricular Function—For the Neonatologist and Pediatric Intensivist. 2018;6(April):1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Verdurmen K, Lempersz C, Vullings R, Schroer C, Delhaas T, van Laar JOEH, 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. 2016. Aug;16(1):227. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-1021-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lempersz C, van Laar JOEH, Clur S-AB, Verdurmen KM, Warmerdam GJ, van der Post J, et al. The standardized 12-lead fetal electrocardiogram of the healthy fetus in mid-pregnancy: A cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0232606. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232606 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Vullings R, Peters CHL, Sluijter RJ, Mischi M, Oei SG, Bergmans JWM. Dynamic segmentation and linear prediction for maternal ECG removal in antenatal abdominal recordings. Physiol Meas. 2009;30(3):291. doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/30/3/005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Vullings R, Peters CHL, Mossavat I, Oei SG, Bergmans JWM. Bayesian Approach to Patient-Tailored Vectorcardiography. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2010;57(3):586–95. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2009.2033664 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Prediction Intervals [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jan 4]. Available from: https://www.graphpad.com/support/faq/the-distinction-between-confidence-intervals-prediction-intervals-and-tolerance-intervals/.
  • 27.Brink AJ, Neill CA, Sodi-Pallares D, Pileggi F, Cisneros F, Ginefra P, et al. The mean manifest electrical axis of the ventricular activation process (AQRS) in congenital heart disease: a new approach in electrocardiographic diagnosis. Circulation. 1955. Oct;12(4):612–9. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.12.4.612 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.van Laar JOEH, Warmerdam GJJ, Verdurmen KMJ, Vullings R, Peters CHL, Houterman S, et al. Fetal heart rate variability during pregnancy, obtained from non-invasive electrocardiogram recordings. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93(1):93–101. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12286 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Verdurmen KMJ, Hulsenboom ADJ, van Laar JOEH, Oei SG. Effect of tocolytic drugs on fetal heart rate variability: a systematic review. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30(20):2387–94. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2016.1249844 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Noben L, Verdurmen KMJ, Warmerdam GJJ, Vullings R, Oei SG, van Laar JOEH. The fetal electrocardiogram to detect the effects of betamethasone on fetal heart rate variability. Early Hum Dev. 2019. Mar;130:57–64. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2019.01.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hall JE. Guyton and Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology. In: 13th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2016. p. 144–7. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Gabor Erdoes

6 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-02858

The electrical heart axis of the fetus between 18 and 24 weeks of gestation: a cohort study.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lempersz,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 21 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gabor Erdoes, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. We note that you have not provided a financial disclosure with the original submission data.

At this time, please address the following queries:

  1. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

  2. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

  3. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

  4. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you did not complete the Competing Interests section with the original submission data.

a. Please complete your Competing Interests statement to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

b. This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

Additional Editor Comments:

Please especially provide detailed answers to the comments of reviewer 3, as this reviewer was particularly critical of the study.  

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study examined the electrical axis of the fetal heart between 18 and 24 weeks gestation in a cohort study. This was a normative study in fetuses shown to have a normal fetal echo at a mean of 20 weeks gestation. Utilizing a non-invasive method with NEMO technology resulted in 6 dipolar electrodes in a standardized array on the maternal abdomen. Fetal echo orientation of the body position allowed the generation of a fetal vectorcardiogram from which a mean frontal fetal cardiac electric axis was generated equaling 123 degrees with 90% PI of 26 – 271 degrees. They concluded that this is consistent with the expected rightward electrical axis of the normal fetus and that they have generated reference values. While there is indeed a great need to perfect non-invasive fetal ecg’s for research and clinical purposes, and the authors are making a great contribution to science by developing this technology, unfortunately, the very wide confidence intervals of the mean value, even with such a large cohort, implies that this particular parameter is not clinically useful as is, and this is acknowledged by the authors. However, they are encouraged to continue to explore the utility of this technique. In fact, they have included a copy of their large long-term pilot study of fetal non-invasive electrocardiograms, of which this project is a small part.

It was unexpected that the electrical axis turned out to be so variable in this study. I posit that the greatest source of error is in their estimation of the fetal chest position. The mean frontal electric cardiac axis is very dependent on the orientation of the heart in relation to the 3-dimensional thorax. Postnatally, our electrode arrays are oriented to the usual levocardia, can be corrected for dextrocardia, and are known to vary with altered positional anatomy of the heart (eg, mesocardia) and the thorax (eg, scoliosis). The study’s method of having trainees periodically assess the fetal lie during the ecg, while the fetus may be moving, is the probable source of error. It is neither accurate nor precise. I would humbly suggest that they try this again, but next time carefully correct the vectorcardiogram for a fixed, anatomically and easily identified landmark, such as diaphragm, or even spine. Shortening the length of study might also reduce error due to fetal movement.

A few questions and comments:

Was this a convenience sample, or all consecutive normal fetal echos?

The technical success rate was remarkable in that only 5 of 281 eligible fetuses could not be analyzed.

The Title and Abstract are good.

The Introduction is long, but clear and informative.

The Methods are adequate, and while they mostly refer to their previous publications, these and the Research Protocol are all readily available.

The Results are straightforward.

The Discussion is a bit lengthy, but complete, including strengths, weaknesses, and future directions.

The text is clear and well written, but still needs careful proofreading.

This group has many prior publications in this field, which is supportive.

The References are comprehensive and relevant.

The Figures and Tables are good.

Overall, the science appears to be valid, technically believable and thus reproducible. The results are unique. Again, I encourage the authors to improve their correction for fetal thorax orientation.

Specific Comments:

The copy of the manuscript provided to me somehow included all of the preceding editorial markups and corrections. In addition, the text version I accessed included prior assessments by 3 previous reviewers. However, I generated my review before reading the other opinions.

Reference 30 is a book and appears incomplete without the name and location of the publisher.

The word “data” is always plural.

The sentence on lines 163-165 is unclear to me.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting paper about fetal ECG´s performed in normal pregnancies. The authors conclude, that the range of a normal fetal heart axis is wide and the fetal heart axis alone is not suitable for screening of CHD due to the wide prediction interval. I agree to the comments of the three previous reviewers. The comments of the authors and their changes within the text improved the paper. In conclusion, the authors showed that despite an optimal setting (study setting, optimal time window) the fetal heart axis is wide [and its use not applicable for screening of CHD].

Although they did not include fetuses with CHD als reference group, it many be reasonable to draw the above mentioned conclusions.

This should be published.

comment to the revision: lines 292 to 299: The statement that the heart axis has been shown to rotate in a fetus with aortic stenosis or critical pulmonary stenosis is an assumption that has not yet been proven. A fetal echo has a significantly greater significance here. I recommend deleting this section.

Reviewer #3: Lempersz et al performed a prospective study to evaluate the normal cardiac axis in fetuses.

Abstract:

This study does not evaluate electrical heart axis in CHD, it only evaluates normal fetuses. Please do not put in the discussion anything regarding the electrical axis in CHD screening.

Introduction:

Please cite: NI-fECG enables the production of a 12-lead electrocardiogram by means of a standardized method.

Methods:

Study population, how do doctors evaluate cardiac health? Do they do echocardiograms?

I find this paragraph from 124-130 confusing. Either describe the protocol in full or leave it out.

Results/conclusions:

I think the major limitation of this study is the utility of this information. I think using this information to then compare to patients with CHD should be the next step and would make this a much more robust and useful study. Otherwise, the study should be reframed as a "proof of concept" study since we know that neonates have a rightward axis. I don't think any information regarding CHD should be put in the paper, because it misleads the reader into thinking that there will be some information on the fetal electrical axis in CHD.

Further comments:

Previous edits are seen in the PDF, which made it challenging to review.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ulrike Herberg

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Dec 16;16(12):e0256115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256115.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 May 2021

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: This study examined the electrical axis of the fetal heart between 18 and 24 weeks gestation in a cohort study. This was a normative study in fetuses shown to have a normal fetal echo at a mean of 20 weeks gestation. Utilizing a non-invasive method with NEMO technology resulted in 6 dipolar electrodes in a standardized array on the maternal abdomen. Fetal echo orientation of the body position allowed the generation of a fetal vectorcardiogram from which a mean frontal fetal cardiac electric axis was generated equaling 123 degrees with 90% PI of 26 – 271 degrees. They concluded that this is consistent with the expected rightward electrical axis of the normal fetus and that they have generated reference values. While there is indeed a great need to perfect non-invasive fetal ecg’s for research and clinical purposes, and the authors are making a great contribution to science by developing this technology, unfortunately, the very wide confidence intervals of the mean value, even with such a large cohort, implies that this particular parameter is not clinically useful as is, and this is acknowledged by the authors. However, they are encouraged to continue to explore the utility of this technique. In fact, they have included a copy of their large long-term pilot study of fetal non-invasive electrocardiograms, of which this project is a small part.

It was unexpected that the electrical axis turned out to be so variable in this study. I posit that the greatest source of error is in their estimation of the fetal chest position. The mean frontal electric cardiac axis is very dependent on the orientation of the heart in relation to the 3-dimensional thorax. Postnatally, our electrode arrays are oriented to the usual levocardia, can be corrected for dextrocardia, and are known to vary with altered positional anatomy of the heart (eg, mesocardia) and the thorax (eg, scoliosis). The study’s method of having trainees periodically assess the fetal lie during the ecg, while the fetus may be moving, is the probable source of error. It is neither accurate nor precise. I would humbly suggest that they try this again, but next time carefully correct the vectorcardiogram for a fixed, anatomically and easily identified landmark, such as diaphragm, or even spine. Shortening the length of study might also reduce error due to fetal movement.

A few questions and comments:

Was this a convenience sample, or all consecutive normal fetal echos?

The technical success rate was remarkable in that only 5 of 281 eligible fetuses could not be analyzed.

The Title and Abstract are good.

The Introduction is long, but clear and informative.

The Methods are adequate, and while they mostly refer to their previous publications, these and the Research Protocol are all readily available.

The Results are straightforward.

The Discussion is a bit lengthy, but complete, including strengths, weaknesses, and future directions.

The text is clear and well written, but still needs careful proofreading.

This group has many prior publications in this field, which is supportive.

The References are comprehensive and relevant.

The Figures and Tables are good.

Overall, the science appears to be valid, technically believable and thus reproducible. The results are unique. Again, I encourage the authors to improve their correction for fetal thorax orientation.

Specific Comments:

The copy of the manuscript provided to me somehow included all of the preceding editorial markups and corrections. In addition, the text version I accessed included prior assessments by 3 previous reviewers. However, I generated my review before reading the other opinions.

Reference 30 is a book and appears incomplete without the name and location of the publisher.

The word “data” is always plural.

The sentence on lines 163-165 is unclear to me.

Answer: Thank you for your thorough reading of the paper and your feedback.

We want to apologize for having submitted a version with editorial markups and assessments from previous reviewers.

We admit that the determination of the fetal orientation is a limitation of this study. The fetal orientation was determined following a protocol in which the spine was taken as an identifiable landmark. The ultrasound probe was held only in a horizontal and vertical position for it to be reproducible and annotations were made about the position of the probe. A few factors can contribute to inaccuracies in the correction for the fetal orientation: inaccuracies in the correction for fetal movement and inaccurate assessment of the fetal orientation and the time at which this assessment was made.

To minimize these inaccuracies, we have used the ECG data that was recorded around the time that the fetal orientation assessment was done. Possible cumulative errors in the correction for movement will therefore be limited. As an extra check, we did determine the fetal orientation multiple times per recording. Within a single patient, the correct ECGs/VCGs are compared to verify their consistency, which can act as an indirect evaluation of the accuracy of our orientation correction. We have modified the manuscript to include this extra check.

With regard to the question regarding the samples that we used in our study. All measurements were taken of healthy fetuses after the 20 week anomaly scan, so these were all consecutive normal echos

Answer: Reference 30 has been completed.

Answer: Lines 163-165 have been adjusted for more clarification.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting paper about fetal ECG´s performed in normal pregnancies. The authors conclude, that the range of a normal fetal heart axis is wide and the fetal heart axis alone is not suitable for screening of CHD due to the wide prediction interval. I agree to the comments of the three previous reviewers. The comments of the authors and their changes within the text improved the paper. In conclusion, the authors showed that despite an optimal setting (study setting, optimal time window) the fetal heart axis is wide [and its use not applicable for screening of CHD].

Although they did not include fetuses with CHD als reference group, it many be reasonable to draw the above mentioned conclusions.

This should be published.

comment to the revision: lines 292 to 299: The statement that the heart axis has been shown to rotate in a fetus with aortic stenosis or critical pulmonary stenosis is an assumption that has not yet been proven. A fetal echo has a significantly greater significance here. I recommend deleting this section.

Answer: Thank you for your positive comments regarding the manuscript. We agree with the suggestion on lines 292 to 299 and have deleted these.

Reviewer #3: Lempersz et al performed a prospective study to evaluate the normal cardiac axis in fetuses.

Abstract:

This study does not evaluate electrical heart axis in CHD, it only evaluates normal fetuses. Please do not put in the discussion anything regarding the electrical axis in CHD screening.

Answer: Thank you for the time taken to read the manuscript and to provide valuable feedback.

We have adjusted the discussion section of the abstract by deleting the sentence about CHD screening.

Introduction:

Please cite: NI-fECG enables the production of a 12-lead electrocardiogram by means of a standardized method.

Answer: We have added a reference (no 14) for this.

Methods:

Study population, how do doctors evaluate cardiac health? Do they do echocardiograms?

I find this paragraph from 124-130 confusing. Either describe the protocol in full or leave it out.

Answer: Before women were included in the study, they all underwent the fetal anomaly scan in which, amongst others, fetal cardiac health was assessed. Women could enter the study if the fetal anomaly scan showed a healthy fetus. The Paragraph (lines 124-130) has been changed for clarification. Postnatal check-ups consist of physical examination and auscultation of the heart.

Results/conclusions:

I think the major limitation of this study is the utility of this information. I think using this information to then compare to patients with CHD should be the next step and would make this a much more robust and useful study. Otherwise, the study should be reframed as a "proof of concept" study since we know that neonates have a rightward axis. I don't think any information regarding CHD should be put in the paper, because it misleads the reader into thinking that there will be some information on the fetal electrical axis in CHD.

Answer: Thank you for the useful feedback. We agree with this comment, that was also raised by one of the other reviewers. We have omitted the paragraph regarding CHD.

Further comments:

Previous edits are seen in the PDF, which made it challenging to review.

Answer: We apologize for having submitted the wrong version.

Attachment

Submitted filename: respons to reviewers Plos final.docx

Decision Letter 1

Gabor Erdoes

11 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-02858R1

The electrical heart axis of the fetus between 18 and 24 weeks of gestation: a cohort study.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lempersz,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address the issues raised by the statistical reviewer. Thank you.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 26 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gabor Erdoes, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: No further comments

The authors responded to all questions raised.

The manuscript has been reviewed an corrected.

Reviewer #4: PONE-D-21-02858R1: statistical review

SUMMARY. In this study, the electrical heart axis is proposed as a predictor of healthy fetuses around 20 weeks of gestation. The statistical analysis is based on a sample of frontal angles. Although the methods seem correct and the results are sound, some statistical computations are nonstandard because they belong to circular statistics. As such, these methods deserve a larger description than that one given by this version of the paper: see the specific issues below.

SPECIFIC ISSUES

1. The average frontal axis is a circular mean. Was it computed by the traditional ratio of trigonometric moments? Please clarify.

2. It seems that the confidence interval of the average frontal axis has been computed by assuming that the data are sampled from a von Mises distribution. Please provide the value of the concentration parameter of the von Mises distribution that has been used for computing the confidence interval.

3. Please clarify whether the von Mises parameters have been estimated by maximum likelihood methods. In this case, please clarify if the bias of the maximum likelihood estimate of the concentration parameter has been corrected or not.

3. The von Mises density is just one of the possible distributions that one can choose for circular data modelling. Without asking for a formal test of goodness of fit, could the authors at least overlap the estimated density on the empirical rose diagram of the data? This will show whether the von Mises provides a reasonable fit in this case study.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ulrike Herberg

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Dec 16;16(12):e0256115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256115.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 1


23 Jul 2021

AUTHOR’s RESPONSE:

Reviewer #4: PONE-D-21-02858R1: statistical review

SUMMARY. In this study, the electrical heart axis is proposed as a predictor of healthy fetuses around 20 weeks of gestation. The statistical analysis is based on a sample of frontal angles. Although the methods seem correct and the results are sound, some statistical computations are nonstandard because they belong to circular statistics. As such, these methods deserve a larger description than that one given by this version of the paper: see the specific issues below.

SPECIFIC ISSUES

1. The average frontal axis is a circular mean. Was it computed by the traditional ratio of trigonometric moments? Please clarify.

Yes, we took the maximum likelihood estimate (mle) of the mean direction parameter μ of a von Mises distribution as the average frontal axis which is the same as the first sample trigonometric moment: θ ®="atan2"(S ®/C ®), where C ®=1/n ∑_(j=1)^n▒cos⁡〖θ_j 〗 and S ®=1/n ∑_(j=1)^n▒sin⁡〖θ_j 〗⁡ . The praragraph has been adjusted in the manuscript (lines 176-179).

2. It seems that the confidence interval of the average frontal axis has been computed by assuming that the data are sampled from a von Mises distribution. Please provide the value of the concentration parameter of the von Mises distribution that has been used for computing the confidence interval.

3. Please clarify whether the von Mises parameters have been estimated by maximum likelihood methods. In this case, please clarify if the bias of the maximum likelihood estimate of the concentration parameter has been corrected or not.

We would like to answer the reviewer’s comments 2-3 together since they are related to each other. First, we would like to mention that we computed the prediction interval for the frontal axis rather than the confidence interval. Nevertheless, reviewer 4’s comments regarding the bias of the concentration parameter κ are still valid. Indeed, we used the mle of the κ without bias corrections for the calculation of the prediction interval. Albeit the fact that the correction method proposed by Best and Fisher (1981) is still biased for small values of κ when the sample size is not large, we were able to verify that prediction interval based on the uncorrected κ ^ has close-to-nominal coverage probability via simulations (see Table 1 below). In this simulation study, for each simulation run, we drew 281 independent random samples from a von Mises distribution with parameter μ=4.142 and κ=0.526 (these values are also parameter estimates of the real data which the reviewer requested) and estimated the parameters using maximum likelihood. Based on the estimated parameters, we computed the corresponding quantiles of the von Mises distribution as our prediction interval. Thereafter, an independent sample was again drawn from the same distribution as a “future” observation. Across 10000 simulation runs, we calculated how often the prediction intervals contained the “future” observations.

Prediction interval Coverage probabilities

99% 98.95%

98% 98.02%

97% 96.72%

96% 96.06%

95% 95.11%

94% 93.98%

93% 93.05%

92% 91.46%

91% 90.37%

90% 90.33%

4. The von Mises density is just one of the possible distributions that one can choose for circular data modelling. Without asking for a formal test of goodness of fit, could the authors at least overlap the estimated density on the empirical rose diagram of the data? This will show whether the von Mises provides a reasonable fit in this case study.

We agree with the reviewer that the von Mises distribution is just one of many possible distributions. We hereby provide the plot of the estimated density superimposed on the circular diagram. (diagram can be found in the 'response to reviewer' file)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response-reviewer-4.docx

Decision Letter 2

Gabor Erdoes

2 Aug 2021

The electrical heart axis of the fetus between 18 and 24 weeks of gestation: a cohort study.

PONE-D-21-02858R2

Dear Dr. Lempersz,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Gabor Erdoes, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #4: No

Acceptance letter

Gabor Erdoes

7 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-02858R2

The electrical heart axis of the fetus between 18 and 24 weeks of gestation: a cohort study.

Dear Dr. Lempersz:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Dr. Dr. Gabor Erdoes

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. TREND statement.

    (PDF)

    S1 File. Study protocol.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: respons to reviewers Plos 24-1.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: respons to reviewers Plos final.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response-reviewer-4.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because this was not included in the informed consent procedure participants signed for. Data are available from the Máxima Medical Center Institutional Data Access (contact via jolanda.luime@mmc.nl) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES