Literature DB >> 1359317

Randomised comparison of amniocentesis and transabdominal and transcervical chorionic villus sampling.

S Smidt-Jensen1, M Permin, J Philip, C Lundsteen, J M Zachary, S E Fowler, K Grüning.   

Abstract

We have compared three methods of prenatal diagnosis in two large obstetric centres in Denmark. Women were randomly assigned transabdominal (TA) chorionic villus sampling (CVS), transcervical (TC) CVS, or second-trimester amniocentesis (AC); women at high genetic risk were randomised between the two CVS groups only. Analysis of 45 epidemiological variables showed the three procedure groups to be similar at enrollment. All women were followed up until completion of pregnancy. Among 3079 women at low genetic risk total fetal loss rates were 10.9% for TC CVS, 6.3% for TA CVS, and 6.4% for AC (p < 0.001). More women had bleeding after the procedure in the CVS groups (p < 0.001), whereas more amniotic fluid leakage (p < 0.001) was reported after AC. No uterine infections occurred in any group. No case of oromandibular-limb abnormality was seen in the CVS groups, but 1 child in the AC group had aplasia of the right hand. The two CVS approaches were compared among 2882 women at low and high genetic risk who were found to have cytogenetically normal fetuses. Rates of unintentional loss after the procedure were 7.7% for TC CVS and 3.7% for TA CVS (p < 0.001; 95% Cl of difference 2.3-5.8%). At baseline ultrasound scanning after establishment of optimum sampling conditions, more TC than TA procedures (p < 0.001) were judged not to be feasible. We found that TA CVS allows better access to the placental site than TC sampling, is an easier skill to acquire, and has the potential that more villi can be aspirated when needed. The risk of fetal loss is similar after TA CVS and AC. However, losses after AC are at a later stage and are therefore more distressing. TA procedures remain the first choice for prenatal diagnosis. Since, in our hands, TC sampling carries a greater risk to the fetus, we have abandoned TC CVS in our two study centres.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1359317     DOI: 10.1016/0140-6736(92)92946-d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  8 in total

Review 1.  Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis.

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

Review 2.  Instruments for chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  Carmen Young; Peter von Dadelszen; Zarko Alfirevic
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-01-31

Review 3.  Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  Z Alfirevic; K Sundberg; S Brigham
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2003

4.  Perceptions of prenatal testing for birth defects among rural Latinas.

Authors:  Courtney Griffiths; Miriam Kuppermann
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2007-10-05

5.  Periodic health examination, 1996 update: 1. Prenatal screening for and diagnosis of Down syndrome. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination.

Authors:  P T Dick
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-02-15       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 6.  Exome Sequencing in Fetuses with Structural Malformations.

Authors:  Fiona L Mackie; Keren J Carss; Sarah C Hillman; Matthew E Hurles; Mark D Kilby
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2014-07-08       Impact factor: 4.241

7.  Extracellular chromosome 21-derived microRNAs in euploid & aneuploid pregnancies.

Authors:  Katerina Kotlabova; Jindrich Doucha; Daniel Chudoba; Pavel Calda; Klara Dlouha; Ilona Hromadnikova
Journal:  Indian J Med Res       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.375

8.  Comparison of complications of chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis.

Authors:  Nahid Shahbazian; Mojgan Barati; Parvin Arian; Najmie Saadati
Journal:  Int J Fertil Steril       Date:  2012-03-20
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.