Literature DB >> 29966046

Prenatal chromosomal microarray uptake with invasive prenatal diagnosis: How many patients take the leap?

Claire N Singletary1,2,3, Nevena Cvjetkovic Krstic4, Jennifer L Czerwinski1,3, Meagan Giles Choates1,3, Chelsea Wagner1,3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Characterize the uptake of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) among women undergoing invasive prenatal diagnosis at a large academic institution over a 4-year time period.
METHODS: Retrospective database review of women who underwent invasive prenatal diagnosis via chorionic villus sampling (CVS) or amniocentesis. Entries were reviewed for demographic and clinical information.
RESULTS: Nine hundred forty-six diagnostic procedures were performed at our institution over a 4-year time period including 259 CVS and 687 amniocentesis procedures. Overall, 32% elected CMA, with a significant increase in uptake over time. Women with Medicaid/CHIP insurance were more likely to elect CMA than those with private insurance (OR = 1.59, 95% CI, 1.18-2.14), while multigravida women were less likely than primigravidas to elect CMA (P = 0.003). Women with ultrasound findings were more likely to elect CMA than any other indication. Those with structural abnormalities in multiple systems (OR = 3.75, 95% CI, 1.60-8.79) or abnormalities in a single system (OR = 3.22, 95% CI, 1.47-7.05) were more likely to elect CMA than with any other types of ultrasound findings.
CONCLUSION: The uptake of CMA significantly increased over a 4-year period at a large academic institution. Women with ultrasound indications, specifically structural abnormalities, are the most likely to elect CMA.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29966046     DOI: 10.1002/pd.5324

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prenat Diagn        ISSN: 0197-3851            Impact factor:   3.050


  3 in total

1.  Disparities in the acceptance of chromosomal microarray at the time of prenatal genetic diagnosis.

Authors:  Kate Swanson; Kelsey B Loeliger; Shilpa P Chetty; Teresa N Sparks; Mary E Norton
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 3.242

2.  Evaluation of chromosomal abnormalities and copy number variations in fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers.

Authors:  Meiying Cai; Na Lin; Xuemei Chen; Meimei Fu; Nan Guo; Liangpu Xu; Hailong Huang
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 3.063

Review 3.  Molecular Approaches in Fetal Malformations, Dynamic Anomalies and Soft Markers: Diagnostic Rates and Challenges-Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Gioia Mastromoro; Daniele Guadagnolo; Nader Khaleghi Hashemian; Enrica Marchionni; Alice Traversa; Antonio Pizzuti
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-23
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.