We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis.
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 2019 October
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the procedure-related risks of miscarriage following chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis in a large unselected screened population, and to determine whether these risks are consistent with those reported in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study carried out on data obtained from a large fetal medicine unit in the UK between January 2009 and May 2018. We included all women with singleton pregnancy who booked for pregnancy care at our unit before 20 weeks' gestation, after excluding those with multiple pregnancy, major fetal defect, pregnancy termination and loss to follow-up. We estimated the risk of miscarriage in women who underwent a CVS or amniocentesis as well as in those who did not have an invasive procedure. The procedure-related risk of miscarriage was estimated as risk difference (95% CI) between the two groups. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to derive odds ratios (95% CI) and determine which maternal and pregnancy characteristics provided a significant contribution in the prediction of miscarriage and whether CVS or amniocentesis provided a significant independent contribution.
RESULTS: During the study period, 45 120 singleton pregnancies were booked for pregnancy care at our hospital, of which 1546 had an invasive procedure. We excluded 1429 (3.2%) pregnancies due to fetal defects, termination of pregnancy or missing outcomes. Of the 43 691 pregnancies included in the study population, 861 underwent CVS and 375 amniocentesis. In pregnancies that underwent CVS, the risk of miscarriage was 1.5% (13/861), compared with 1.2% (476/39 152) in pregnancies that had first-trimester combined screening and did not have an invasive procedure (P = 0.437). In pregnancies that underwent an amniocentesis, the risk of miscarriage was 0.8% (3/375), compared with 1.2% (491/42 463) in those that did not undergo an invasive procedure (P = 0.520). Univariate and multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that there was no significant contribution in the prediction of the risk of miscarriage from CVS (P = 0.399 and P = 0.592, respectively) or amniocentesis (P = 0.543 and P = 0.550, respectively). The risk of procedure-related loss attributed to CVS was 0.29% (95% CI, -0.53 to 1.12%) and that following amniocentesis was -0.36% (95% CI, -1.26 to 0.55%), which was not significantly different from the risk in women who did not have any procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: The procedure-related risks of miscarriage following CVS and amniocentesis in our study are considerably lower than those currently quoted and are consistent with the estimates of such risks reported by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study carried out on data obtained from a large fetal medicine unit in the UK between January 2009 and May 2018. We included all women with singleton pregnancy who booked for pregnancy care at our unit before 20 weeks' gestation, after excluding those with multiple pregnancy, major fetal defect, pregnancy termination and loss to follow-up. We estimated the risk of miscarriage in women who underwent a CVS or amniocentesis as well as in those who did not have an invasive procedure. The procedure-related risk of miscarriage was estimated as risk difference (95% CI) between the two groups. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to derive odds ratios (95% CI) and determine which maternal and pregnancy characteristics provided a significant contribution in the prediction of miscarriage and whether CVS or amniocentesis provided a significant independent contribution.
RESULTS: During the study period, 45 120 singleton pregnancies were booked for pregnancy care at our hospital, of which 1546 had an invasive procedure. We excluded 1429 (3.2%) pregnancies due to fetal defects, termination of pregnancy or missing outcomes. Of the 43 691 pregnancies included in the study population, 861 underwent CVS and 375 amniocentesis. In pregnancies that underwent CVS, the risk of miscarriage was 1.5% (13/861), compared with 1.2% (476/39 152) in pregnancies that had first-trimester combined screening and did not have an invasive procedure (P = 0.437). In pregnancies that underwent an amniocentesis, the risk of miscarriage was 0.8% (3/375), compared with 1.2% (491/42 463) in those that did not undergo an invasive procedure (P = 0.520). Univariate and multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that there was no significant contribution in the prediction of the risk of miscarriage from CVS (P = 0.399 and P = 0.592, respectively) or amniocentesis (P = 0.543 and P = 0.550, respectively). The risk of procedure-related loss attributed to CVS was 0.29% (95% CI, -0.53 to 1.12%) and that following amniocentesis was -0.36% (95% CI, -1.26 to 0.55%), which was not significantly different from the risk in women who did not have any procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: The procedure-related risks of miscarriage following CVS and amniocentesis in our study are considerably lower than those currently quoted and are consistent with the estimates of such risks reported by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app