Rebecca J Baer1, Robert J Currier, Mary E Norton, Monica C Flessel, Sara Goldman, Dena Towner, Laura L Jelliffe-Pawlowski. 1. Genetic Disease Screening Program, California Department of Public Health, Richmond, and the Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California; and the Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of adverse obstetric, perinatal, and fetal outcomes for pregnant women participating in prenatal sequential integrated screening through the California Prenatal Screening Program who had a false-positive screening result. METHODS: Women who underwent first- and second-trimester prenatal integrated screening plus nuchal translucency measurement with outcome information available were included. Fetuses and neonates with chromosomal or neural tube defects were excluded. We compared the risk of adverse outcomes for all women with a positive screening result compared with a 10% random sample of women with a negative screening result. Logistic binomial regression was used to compare adverse outcomes in screen-positive compared with screen-negative women. RESULTS: We identified 9,051 screen-positive and 30,928 screen-negative pregnancies with outcome information available. Compared with screen-negative pregnancies, screen-positive women were more likely to be diagnosed with preeclampsia, placenta previa, or abruption (7.6% screen-positive, 3.8% screen-negative; relative risk 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-1.8) or experience fetal loss before 20 weeks of gestation (1.9% screen-positive, 0.2% screen-negative; relative risk 3.5, 95% CI 3.2-3.8). Women with positive results for more than one screened condition were at substantially greater risk of fetal and neonatal mortality (relative risks 33.6-156.7, 95% CIs 21.8-194.4). CONCLUSION: Among pregnancies without chromosomal or neural tube defects, prenatal sequential integrated screening provides information regarding risk across a variety of adverse pregnancy outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of adverse obstetric, perinatal, and fetal outcomes for pregnant women participating in prenatal sequential integrated screening through the California Prenatal Screening Program who had a false-positive screening result. METHODS:Women who underwent first- and second-trimester prenatal integrated screening plus nuchal translucency measurement with outcome information available were included. Fetuses and neonates with chromosomal or neural tube defects were excluded. We compared the risk of adverse outcomes for all women with a positive screening result compared with a 10% random sample of women with a negative screening result. Logistic binomial regression was used to compare adverse outcomes in screen-positive compared with screen-negative women. RESULTS: We identified 9,051 screen-positive and 30,928 screen-negative pregnancies with outcome information available. Compared with screen-negative pregnancies, screen-positive women were more likely to be diagnosed with preeclampsia, placenta previa, or abruption (7.6% screen-positive, 3.8% screen-negative; relative risk 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-1.8) or experience fetal loss before 20 weeks of gestation (1.9% screen-positive, 0.2% screen-negative; relative risk 3.5, 95% CI 3.2-3.8). Women with positive results for more than one screened condition were at substantially greater risk of fetal and neonatal mortality (relative risks 33.6-156.7, 95% CIs 21.8-194.4). CONCLUSION: Among pregnancies without chromosomal or neural tube defects, prenatal sequential integrated screening provides information regarding risk across a variety of adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Authors: Matthew B Wallenstein; Laura L Jelliffe-Pawlowski; Wei Yang; Suzan L Carmichael; David K Stevenson; Kelli K Ryckman; Gary M Shaw Journal: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med Date: 2015-12-23
Authors: Fabienne Trottmann; Anne Elena Mollet; Sofia Amylidi-Mohr; Daniel Surbek; Luigi Raio; Beatrice Mosimann Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 2.915