Literature DB >> 16946222

Chorionic villus sampling compared with amniocentesis and the difference in the rate of pregnancy loss.

Aaron B Caughey1, Linda M Hopkins, Mary E Norton.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare loss rates following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) over time.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all amniocentesis and CVS procedures resulting in a normal karyotype from 1983-2003 at a single prenatal diagnostic referral center was conducted. Pregnancy loss rates for amniocentesis, CVS, and nonintervention groups (ie, those who had nuchal translucency screening or counseling, but no procedure) were compared using the chi 2 test. Year of procedure, maternal age, parity, race or ethnicity, and gestational age at procedure were controlled for in multivariable logistic regression models.
RESULTS: There were 9,886 CVS and 30,893 amniocentesis procedures performed during the study period that resulted in a normal karyotype. The overall loss rates were 3.12% for CVS and 0.83% for amniocentesis (P < .001). When examined by 5-year intervals, there was a statistically significant decrease in the CVS loss rate (P < .001) and a nonsignificant lesser decrease in the loss rate for amniocentesis over time. Although the pregnancy loss rate from CVS over the entire study period was higher than from amniocentesis (adjusted odds ratio 4.23, 95% confidence interval 2.29-7.81), in the most recent time period, 1998 to 2003, there was no difference between the two procedures (adjusted odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.23-4.52).
CONCLUSION: The loss rates for both amniocentesis and CVS at our institution have decreased over time. Because the decrease in loss rate for CVS has been greater, there is no longer a statistically significant difference between the two. These results are informative in both patient counseling and establishing widespread prenatal diagnostic and screening programs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16946222     DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000232512.46869.fc

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


  20 in total

Review 1.  The prenatal diagnosis of genetic diseases.

Authors:  Peter Wieacker; Johannes Steinhard
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-12-03       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  "Don't Want No Risk and Don't Want No Problems": Public Understandings of the Risks and Benefits of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in the United States.

Authors:  Megan Allyse; Lauren Carter Sayres; Taylor Goodspeed; Marsha Michie; Mildred K Cho
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2015

3.  Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis: an ethical imperative.

Authors:  Vardit Ravitsky
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2009-09-15       Impact factor: 53.242

4.  Not-so-free testing for cell-free DNA.

Authors:  Darryl Huang; Karen Lundgard; Michael R Kolber
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 3.275

5.  Cell-free fetal DNA testing for fetal aneuploidy and beyond: clinical integration challenges in the US context.

Authors:  Megan Allyse; Lauren C Sayres; Jaime S King; Mary E Norton; Mildred K Cho
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 6.918

6.  Knowledge, attitudes, and clinical experience of physicians regarding preimplantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes.

Authors:  Amanda C Brandt; Matthew L Tschirgi; Kaylene J Ready; Charlotte Sun; Sandra Darilek; Jacqueline Hecht; Banu K Arun; Karen H Lu
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.375

7.  Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for fetal sex determination: benefits and disadvantages from the service users' perspective.

Authors:  Celine Lewis; Melissa Hill; Heather Skirton; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 8.  CD117(+) amniotic fluid stem cells: state of the art and future perspectives.

Authors:  Mara Cananzi; Paolo De Coppi
Journal:  Organogenesis       Date:  2012-07-01       Impact factor: 2.500

9.  Amniotic fluid stem cell migration after intraperitoneal injection in pup rats: implication for therapy.

Authors:  Marco Ghionzoli; Mara Cananzi; Augusto Zani; Carlo Alberto Rossi; Francesco Fascetti Leon; Agostino Pierro; Simon Eaton; Paolo De Coppi
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.827

10.  Frequency of prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis and pregnancy outcomes by maternal race-ethnicity, and the effect on the prevalence of trisomy 21, Metropolitan Atlanta, 1996-2005.

Authors:  Jodi M Jackson; Krista S Crider; Janet D Cragan; Sonja A Rasmussen; Richard S Olney
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2013-11-22       Impact factor: 2.802

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.