Literature DB >> 12917956

Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis.

Z Alfirevic1, K Sundberg, S Brigham.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A major disadvantage of second trimester amniocentesis is that the result is usually available only after 18 weeks' gestation. Chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and early amniocentesis can be done between 9 and 14 weeks and offer an earlier alternative.
OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess comparative safety and accuracy of second trimester amniocentesis, early amniocentesis, transcervical and transabdominal CVS. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (March 2003) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2002). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised trials comparing amniocentesis and CVS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers assessed eligibility and trial quality and performed data extraction. We analysed the data using RevMan software. MAIN
RESULTS: A total of 14 randomised studies have been included. In a low risk population with a background pregnancy loss of around 2%, a second trimester amniocentesis will increase this risk by another 1%. This difference did not reach statistical significance, but the increase in spontaneous miscarriages following second trimester amniocentesis compared with controls (no amniocentesis) did (2.1% versus 1.3%; relative risk (RR) 1.02 to 2.52). Early amniocentesis is not a safe early alternative to second trimester amniocentesis because of increased pregnancy loss (7.6% versus 5.9%; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61) and higher incidence of talipes compared to CVS (1.8% versus 0.2%; RR 6.43, 95% CI 1.68 to 24.64).Compared with second trimester amniocentesis, transcervical CVS carries a significantly higher risk of pregnancy loss (14.5% versus 11%; RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.81) and spontaneous miscarriage (12.9% versus 9.4%; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.11). One study compared transabdominal CVS with second trimester amniocentesis and found no significant difference in the total pregnancy loss between the two procedures (6.3% versus 7%). Transcervical CVS is more technically demanding than transabdominal CVS with more failures to obtain sample and more multiple insertions. REVIEWER'S
CONCLUSIONS: Second trimester amniocentesis is safer than transcervical CVS and early amniocentesis. If earlier diagnosis is required, transabdominal CVS is preferable to early amniocentesis or transcervical CVS. In circumstances where transabdominal CVS may be technically difficult the preferred options are transcervical CVS in the first trimester or second trimester amniocentesis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12917956      PMCID: PMC4171981          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003252

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  63 in total

1.  Cytogenetic aspects of the Canadian early and mid-trimester amniotic fluid trial (CEMAT).

Authors:  E J Winsor; D J Tomkins; D Kalousek; S Farrell; P Wyatt; Y S Fan; R Carter; H Wang; L Dallaire; P Eydoux; J P Welch; A Dawson; J C Lin; J Singer; J Johnson; R D Wilson
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 3.050

2.  A randomised trial of progesterone prophylaxis after midtrimester amniocentesis.

Authors:  Francesco Corrado; Corrado Dugo; Maria L Cannata; Massimo Di Bartolo; Angela Scilipoti; Narcisio Carlo Stella
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2002-01-10       Impact factor: 2.435

3.  Malformations and minor anomalies in children whose mothers had prenatal diagnosis: comparison between CVS and amniocentesis.

Authors:  P Kaplan; J Normandin; G N Wilson; H Plauchu; A Lippman; M Vekemans
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  1990-11

4.  Comparison of first-trimester transvaginal amniocentesis with chorionic villus sampling and mid-trimester amniocentesis.

Authors:  E Shalev; E Weiner; N Yanai; Y Shneur; H Cohen
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 3.050

5.  Ultrasonography for guidance of amniocentesis in genetic counseling.

Authors:  S C Levine; R A Filly; M S Golbus
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  1978-09       Impact factor: 4.438

6.  Does light pressure effleurage reduce pain and anxiety associated with genetic amniocentesis? A randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  R L Fischer; K W Bianculli; H Sehdev; M L Hediger
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Med       Date:  2000 Sep-Oct

7.  A prospective comparative study on transabdominal chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis performed at 10-13 week's gestation.

Authors:  M Cederholm; O Axelsson
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 3.050

8.  Amniocentesis results: investigation of anxiety. The ARIA trial.

Authors:  J Hewison; J Nixon; J Fountain; K Cocks; C Jones; G Mason; S Morley; J Thornton
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.014

9.  Difficulties encountered in a randomization trial of CVS versus amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  H Muggah; A G Hunter; B Ivey; D M Cox
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 4.438

10.  Anxiety reduction after chorionic villus sampling and genetic amniocentesis.

Authors:  G E Robinson; D M Garner; M P Olmsted; J Shime; E M Hutton; B M Crawford
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 8.661

View more
  55 in total

1.  Optimising prenatal diagnosis of Down's syndrome.

Authors:  James P Neilson; Zarko Alfirevic
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-02-25

2.  Epigenetic approaches for the detection of fetal DNA in maternal plasma.

Authors:  Dana Wy Tsui; Rossa Wk Chiu; Ym Dennis Lo
Journal:  Chimerism       Date:  2010 Jul-Sep

Review 3.  Next-generation molecular diagnosis: single-cell sequencing from bench to bedside.

Authors:  Wanjun Zhu; Xiao-Yan Zhang; Sadie L Marjani; Jialing Zhang; Wengeng Zhang; Shixiu Wu; Xinghua Pan
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 9.261

4.  Next generation sequencing of SNPs for non-invasive prenatal diagnosis: challenges and feasibility as illustrated by an application to β-thalassaemia.

Authors:  Thessalia Papasavva; Wilfred F J van Ijcken; Christel E M Kockx; Mirjam C G N van den Hout; Petros Kountouris; Loukas Kythreotis; Eleni Kalogirou; Frank G Grosveld; Marina Kleanthous
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  The Foundation in Evidence of Medical and Dental Telephone Consultations.

Authors:  Martina Albrecht; Florian Isenbeck; Jüürgen Kasper; Ingrid Mühlhauser; Anke Steckelberg
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2016-06-06       Impact factor: 5.594

6.  Diagnosis of and screening for cytomegalovirus infection in pregnant women.

Authors:  S C Munro; B Hall; L R Whybin; L Leader; P Robertson; G T Maine; W D Rawlinson
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 7.  Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  Zarko Alfirevic; Kate Navaratnam; Faris Mujezinovic
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-09-04

8.  Placental mesenchymal stromal cells rescue ambulation in ovine myelomeningocele.

Authors:  Aijun Wang; Erin G Brown; Lee Lankford; Benjamin A Keller; Christopher D Pivetti; Nicole A Sitkin; Michael S Beattie; Jacqueline C Bresnahan; Diana L Farmer
Journal:  Stem Cells Transl Med       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 6.940

Review 9.  Noninvasive prenatal testing: the future is now.

Authors:  Errol R Norwitz; Brynn Levy
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013

10.  A four-year retrospective study of amniocentesis: one centre experience.

Authors:  A Daniilidis; H Karydas; V Zournatzi; T Tantanasis; C Giannoulis; J Tzafettas
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 0.471

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.