Lut Geerts1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tygerberg Hospital, University of Stellenbosch, Cape Town, South Africa. lgeerts@sun.ac.za
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and efficiency of systematic, ultrasound-based risk adjustment using a published algorithm with that of a maternal age cutoff of 37 years for the prenatal detection of chromosomal abnormalities (especially autosomal trisomies). METHODS: These approaches were compared in a retrospective study of 136 chromosomal abnormalities confirmed by karyotyping prenatally (n=46) or postnatally (n=90). There were 114 autosomal trisomies. RESULTS: Maternal age was known for 103 fetuses with confirmed abnormalities. The ultrasound-based risk adjustment approach was more sensitive for autosomal trisomy (93.9% vs 44.1%), and karyotyping for younger women with abnormalities on ultrasound was more effective than routine karyotyping in older women (1 trisomy detected in 13.5 vs 42.8 samples, P<0.001). A lack of screening was the main reason for the postnatal diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-based risk adjustment was the more effective approach.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and efficiency of systematic, ultrasound-based risk adjustment using a published algorithm with that of a maternal age cutoff of 37 years for the prenatal detection of chromosomal abnormalities (especially autosomal trisomies). METHODS: These approaches were compared in a retrospective study of 136 chromosomal abnormalities confirmed by karyotyping prenatally (n=46) or postnatally (n=90). There were 114 autosomal trisomies. RESULTS: Maternal age was known for 103 fetuses with confirmed abnormalities. The ultrasound-based risk adjustment approach was more sensitive for autosomal trisomy (93.9% vs 44.1%), and karyotyping for younger women with abnormalities on ultrasound was more effective than routine karyotyping in older women (1 trisomy detected in 13.5 vs 42.8 samples, P<0.001). A lack of screening was the main reason for the postnatal diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-based risk adjustment was the more effective approach.
Authors: S Kate Alldred; Yemisi Takwoingi; Boliang Guo; Mary Pennant; Jonathan J Deeks; James P Neilson; Zarko Alfirevic Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-03-15
Authors: S Kate Alldred; Yemisi Takwoingi; Boliang Guo; Mary Pennant; Jonathan J Deeks; James P Neilson; Zarko Alfirevic Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-03-15
Authors: Joyce L Browne; Kerstin Klipstein-Grobusch; Maria P H Koster; Dhivya Ramamoorthy; Edward Antwi; Idder Belmouden; Arie Franx; Diederick E Grobbee; Peter C J I Schielen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: S Kate Alldred; Yemisi Takwoingi; Boliang Guo; Mary Pennant; Jonathan J Deeks; James P Neilson; Zarko Alfirevic Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-11-30