Literature DB >> 15172861

Changes in the utilization of prenatal diagnosis.

Peter A Benn1, James F X Egan, Min Fang, Rebecca Smith-Bindman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The impact of prenatal screening for Down syndrome has largely been assessed under the assumption that screening protocols and policies are fully used. To measure the overall effectiveness in actual clinical practice, we analyzed the tests performed by a single cytogenetics laboratory.
METHODS: We reviewed all amniotic fluid and chorionic villus samples (CVS) processed by the University of Connecticut Health Center's cytogenetics laboratory for the years 1991 to 2002. We evaluated trends in the use of prenatal testing, referral indications, and the numbers of cytogenetic abnormalities identified.
RESULTS: The number of women receiving amniocentesis or CVS declined more than 50% from 1,988 in 1991 to 933 in 2002 (P <.001), despite an increase in the number of women of advanced maternal age in the population served. There was a 68% decline in the number of women who underwent invasive prenatal testing solely on the basis of their age (1,314 in 1991 to 423 in 2002, P <.001). The number of Down syndrome fetuses detected prenatally increased from 20 to 31 (P =.08), representing approximately one half of the affected pregnancies present in the population served. Between 1991 and 2002, the proportion of antenatal cytogenetic tests with a significant chromosomal abnormality increased from 1 in 43 (2.3%) to 1 in 14 (7.0%; P <.001).
CONCLUSION: Advances in maternal serum screening and second-trimester ultrasonography have resulted in more judicious use of amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15172861     DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000127008.14792.14

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  15 in total

1.  Impact of fetal counseling on outcome of antenatal congenital surgical anomalies.

Authors:  Shilpa Sharma; Ranjana Bhanot; Dipika Deka; Minu Bajpai; Devendra K Gupta
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2016-11-18       Impact factor: 1.827

2.  Prenatal health care beyond the obstetrics service: utilization and predictors of unscheduled care.

Authors:  Urania Magriples; Trace S Kershaw; Sharon Schindler Rising; Zohar Massey; Jeannette R Ickovics
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Selected birth defects data from population-based birth defects surveillance programs in the United States, 2006 to 2010: featuring trisomy conditions.

Authors:  Cara T Mai; James E Kucik; Jennifer Isenburg; Marcia L Feldkamp; Lisa K Marengo; Erin M Bugenske; Phoebe G Thorpe; Jodi M Jackson; Adolfo Correa; Russel Rickard; C J Alverson; Russell S Kirby
Journal:  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol       Date:  2013-11

4.  Incidence of non-age-dependent chromosomal abnormalities: a population-based study on 88965 amniocenteses.

Authors:  Antonino Forabosco; Antonio Percesepe; Sandra Santucci
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-01-21       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Changes in and Efficacies of Indications for Invasive Prenatal Diagnosis of Cytogenomic Abnormalities: 13 Years of Experience in a Single Center.

Authors:  Jinlai Meng; Chelsea Matarese; Julianna Crivello; Katherine Wilcox; Dongmei Wang; Autumn DiAdamo; Fang Xu; Peining Li
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2015-07-05

6.  Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification and array comparative genomic hybridization analyses for prenatal diagnosis of cytogenomic abnormalities.

Authors:  Zhiyong Xu; Qian Geng; Fuwei Luo; Fang Xu; Peining Li; Jiansheng Xie
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 2.009

7.  Prediction, prevention and personalisation of medication for the prenatal period: genetic prenatal tests for both rare and common diseases.

Authors:  Munis Dundar; Asli Subasioglu Uzak; Murat Erdogan; Yagut Akbarova
Journal:  EPMA J       Date:  2011-05-06       Impact factor: 6.543

8.  Detection rates of clinically significant genomic alterations by microarray analysis for specific anomalies detected by ultrasound.

Authors:  Lisa G Shaffer; Jill A Rosenfeld; Mindy P Dabell; Justine Coppinger; Anne M Bandholz; Jay W Ellison; J Britt Ravnan; Beth S Torchia; Blake C Ballif; Allan J Fisher
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2012-07-30       Impact factor: 3.050

9.  The utilization and choices of aneuploidy screening in a midwestern population.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Dicke; Lindsey Van Duyne; Rachael Bradshaw
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.