Literature DB >> 17077226

Pregnancy loss rates after midtrimester amniocentesis.

Keith A Eddleman1, Fergal D Malone, Lisa Sullivan, Kim Dukes, Richard L Berkowitz, Yara Kharbutli, T Flint Porter, David A Luthy, Christine H Comstock, George R Saade, Susan Klugman, Lorraine Dugoff, Sabrina D Craigo, Ilan E Timor-Tritsch, Stephen R Carr, Honor M Wolfe, Mary E D'Alton.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the contemporary procedure-related loss rate after midtrimester amniocentesis using a database generated from patients who were recruited to the First And Second Trimester Evaluation of Risk for Aneuploidy trial.
METHODS: A total of 35,003 unselected patients from the general population with viable singleton pregnancies were enrolled in the First And Second Trimester Evaluation of Risk for Aneuploidy trial between 10 3/7 and 13 6/7 weeks gestation and followed up prospectively for complete pregnancy outcome information. Patients who either did (study group, n=3,096) or did not (control group, n=31,907) undergo midtrimester amniocentesis were identified from the database. The rate of fetal loss less than 24 weeks of gestation was compared between the two groups, and multiple logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for potential confounders.
RESULTS: The spontaneous fetal loss rate less than 24 weeks of gestation in the study group was 1.0% and was not statistically different from the background 0.94% rate seen in the control group (P=.74, 95% confidence interval -0.26%, 0.49%). The procedure-related loss rate after amniocentesis was 0.06% (1.0% minus the background rate of 0.94%). Women undergoing amniocentesis were 1.1 times more likely to have a spontaneous loss (95% confidence interval 0.7-1.5).
CONCLUSION: The procedure-related fetal loss rate after midtrimester amniocentesis performed on patients in a contemporary prospective clinical trial was 0.06%. There was no significant difference in loss rates between those undergoing amniocentesis and those not undergoing amniocentesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17077226     DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000240135.13594.07

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


  36 in total

1.  Contemporary diagnosis and management of preterm premature rupture of membranes.

Authors:  Aaron B Caughey; Julian N Robinson; Errol R Norwitz
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008

2.  Position Statement from the Italian College of Fetal Maternal Medicine: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) by maternal plasma DNA sequencing.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Prenat Med       Date:  2013-04

3.  Prenatal testing for Down syndrome: comparison of screening practices in the UK and USA.

Authors:  Dagmar Tapon
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-11-03       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Invasive prenatal genetic testing: A Catholic healthcare provider's perspective.

Authors:  Jay J Bringman
Journal:  Linacre Q       Date:  2014-11

5.  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

Review 6.  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

7.  Factors that affect the decision to undergo amniocentesis in women with normal Down syndrome screening results: it is all about the age.

Authors:  Julia Grinshpun-Cohen; Talya Miron-Shatz; Liat Ries-Levavi; Elon Pras
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Prevention of maternal cytomegalovirus infection: current status and future prospects.

Authors:  Jessica L Nyholm; Mark R Schleiss
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2010-08-09

9.  Ambivalence toward undergoing invasive prenatal testing: an exploration of its origins.

Authors:  Julie Chevalier Sapp; Sara Chandros Hull; Shelby Duffer; Sarah Zornetzer; Erica Sutton; Theresa M Marteau; Barbara Bowles Biesecker
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.050

10.  Quantitative proteomics analysis of maternal plasma in Down syndrome pregnancies using isobaric tagging reagent (iTRAQ).

Authors:  Varaprasad Kolla; Paul Jenö; Suzette Moes; Sevgi Tercanli; Olav Lapaire; Mahesh Choolani; Sinuhe Hahn
Journal:  J Biomed Biotechnol       Date:  2009-11-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.