Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology Volume 8, 2013 - Issue 2
Journal homepage
8
Views
4
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Procedure-related pregnancy loss following invasive prenatal sampling: time for a new approach to risk assessment and counseling

Caroline M Ogilvie Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College, London, UK. [email protected]
&
Ranjit Akolekar Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, Kent, UK; King’s College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London, UK; St George’s Hospital, Tooting, London, UK
Pages 135-142 | Published online: 10 Jan 2014

References

  • De Souza E, Alberman E, Morris JK. Down’s syndrome: screening and antenatal diagnosis regionally in England and Wales 1989–2008. J. Med. Screen. 17(4), 170–175 (2010).
  • Kagan KO, Wright D, Baker A, Sahota D, Nicolaides KH. Screening for trisomy 21 by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency thickness, free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 31(6), 618–624 (2008).
  • Wald NJ, Rodeck C, Hackshaw AK, Walters J, Chitty L, Mackinson AM. First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down’s syndrome: the results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS). J. Med. Screen. 10(2), 56–104 (2003).
  • Hoesli IM, Walter-Göbel I, Tercanli S, Holzgreve W. Spontaneous fetal loss rates in a non-selected population. Am. J. Med. Genet. 100(2), 106–109 (2001).
  • Fretts RC, Schmittdiel J, McLean FH, Usher RH, Goldman MB. Increased maternal age and the risk of fetal death. N. Engl. J. Med. 333(15), 953–957 (1995).
  • Berkowitz GS, Skovron ML, Lapinski RH, Berkowitz RL. Delayed childbearing and the outcome of pregnancy. N. Engl. J. Med. 322(10), 659–664 (1990).
  • Nybo Andersen AM, Wohlfahrt J, Christens P, Olsen J, Melbye M. Maternal age and fetal loss: population based register linkage study. BMJ 320(7251), 1708–1712 (2000).
  • Sebire NJ, Jolly M, Harris JP et al. Maternal obesity and pregnancy outcome: a study of 287,213 pregnancies in London. Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord. 25(8), 1175–1182 (2001).
  • Spencer K, Cowans NJ, Avgidou K, Nicolaides KH. First-trimester ultrasound and biochemical markers of aneuploidy and the prediction of impending fetal death. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 28(5), 637–643 (2006).
  • Smith GC, Fretts RC. Stillbirth. Lancet 370(9600), 1715–1725 (2007).
  • Metwally M, Ong KJ, Ledger WL, Li TC. Does high body mass index increase the risk of miscarriage after spontaneous and assisted conception? A meta-analysis of the evidence. Fertil. Steril. 90(3), 714–726 (2008).
  • NICHD National Registry for Amniocentesis Study Group. Midtrimester amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis. Safety and accuracy. JAMA 236(13), 1471–1476 (1976).
  • Sundberg K, Bang J, Smidt-Jensen S et al. Randomised study of risk of fetal loss related to early amniocentesis versus chorionic villus sampling. Lancet 350(9079), 697–703 (1997).
  • Johnson JM, Wilson RD, Singer J et al. Technical factors in early amniocentesis predict adverse outcome. Results of the Canadian Early (EA) versus Mid-trimester (MA) Amniocentesis Trial. Prenat. Diagn. 19(8), 732–738 (1999).
  • Tabor A, Philip J, Madsen M, Bang J, Obel EB, Nørgaard-Pedersen B. Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet 1(8493), 1287–1293 (1986).
  • MRC Working Party on Amniocentesis. An assessment of the hazards of amniocentesis. Br. J. Obst. Gynaecol. 85(Suppl. 2), 1–4 (1978).
  • Roper EC, Konje JC, De Chazal RC, Duckett DP, Oppenheimer CA, Taylor DJ. Genetic amniocentesis: gestation-specific pregnancy outcome and comparison of outcome following early and traditional amniocentesis. Prenat. Diagn. 19(9), 803–807 (1999).
  • Tabor A, Vestergaard CH, Lidegaard Ø. Fetal loss rate after chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis: an 11-year national registry study. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 34(1), 19–24 (2009).
  • Muller F, Thibaud D, Poloce F et al. Risk of amniocentesis in women screened positive for Down syndrome with second trimester maternal serum markers. Prenat. Diagn. 22(11), 1036–1039 (2002).
  • Nassar AH, Martin D, González-Quintero VH et al. Genetic amniocentesis complications: is the incidence overrated? Gynecol. Obstet. Invest. 58(2), 100–104 (2004).
  • Lowe CU, Alexander D. Midtrimester amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis: safety and accuracy. JAMA 236(13), 1471–1476 (1976).
  • Simpson NE, Dallaire L, Miller JR et al. Prenatal diagnosis of genetic disease in Canada: report of a collaborative study. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 115(8), 739–748 (1976).
  • Williams J 3rd, Wang BB, Rubin CH, Aiken-Hunting D. Chorionic villus sampling: experience with 3016 cases performed by a single operator. Obstet. Gynecol. 80(6), 1023–1029 (1992).
  • Brambati B, Tului L, Cislaghi C, Alberti E. First 10,000 chorionic villus samplings performed on singleton pregnancies by a single operator. Prenat. Diagn. 18(3), 255–266 (1998).
  • Antsaklis A, Papantoniou N, Xygakis A, Mesogitis S, Tzortzis E, Michalas S. Genetic amniocentesis in women 20–34 years old: associated risks. Prenat. Diagn. 20(3), 247–250 (2000).
  • Reid KP, Gurrin LC, Dickinson JE, Newnham JP, Phillips JM. Pregnancy loss rates following second trimester genetic amniocentesis. Aust. NZ J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 39(3), 281–285 (1999).
  • Caughey AB, Hopkins LM, Norton ME. Chorionic villus sampling compared with amniocentesis and the difference in the rate of pregnancy loss. Obstet. Gynecol. 108(3 Pt 1), 612–616 (2006).
  • Eddleman KA, Malone FD, Sullivan L et al. Pregnancy loss rates after midtrimester amniocentesis. Obstet. Gynecol. 108(5), 1067–1072 (2006).
  • Firth HV, Boyd PA, Chamberlain P, MacKenzie IZ, Lindenbaum RH, Huson SM. Severe limb abnormalities after chorion villus sampling at 56–66 days’ gestation. Lancet 337(8744), 762–763 (1991).
  • Nicolaides K, Brizot Mde L, Patel F, Snijders R. Comparison of chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis for fetal karyotyping at 10–13 weeks’ gestation. Lancet 344(8920), 435–439 (1994).
  • Tabor A, Alfirevic Z. Update on procedure-related risks for prenatal diagnosis techniques. Fetal. Diagn. Ther. 27(1), 1–7 (2010).
  • Odibo AO, Dicke JM, Gray DL et al. Evaluating the rate and risk factors for fetal loss after chorionic villus sampling. Obstet. Gynecol. 112(4), 813–819 (2008).
  • Akolekar R, Bower S, Flack N, Bilardo CM, Nicolaides KH. Prediction of miscarriage and stillbirth at 11–13 weeks and the contribution of chorionic villus sampling. Prenat. Diagn. 31(1), 38–45 (2011).
  • Snijders RJ, Sundberg K, Holzgreve W, Henry G, Nicolaides KH. Maternal age- and gestation-specific risk for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 13(3), 167–170 (1999).
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin number 88. Obst. Gynecol. 110(6), 1459–1467 (2007).
  • Scott F, Peters H, Boogert T et al. The loss rates for invasive prenatal testing in a specialised obstetric ultrasound practice. Aust. NZ J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 42(1), 55–58 (2002).
  • Müngen E, Tütüncü L, Muhcu M, Yergök YZ. Pregnancy outcome following second-trimester amniocentesis: a case–control study. Am. J. Perinatol. 23(1), 25–30 (2006).
  • Tongsong T, Wanapirak C, Sirivatanapa P, Piyamongkol W, Sirichotiyakul S, Yampochai A. Amniocentesis-related fetal loss: a cohort study. Obstet. Gynecol. 92(1), 64–67 (1998).
  • Mujezinovic F, Alfirevic Z. Procedure-related complications of amniocentesis and chorionic villous sampling: a systematic review. Obstet. Gynecol. 110(3), 687–694 (2007).
  • Jackson LG, Zachary JM, Fowler SE et al. A randomized comparison of transcervical and transabdominal chorionic-villus sampling. The U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Chorionic-Villus Sampling and Amniocentesis Study Group. N. Engl. J. Med. 327(9), 594–598 (1992).
  • The Canadian Early and Mid-trimester Amniocentesis Trial (CEMAT) Group. Randomised trial to assess safety and fetal outcome of early and midtrimester amniocentesis. Lancet 351(9098), 242–247 (1998).
  • Philip J, Silver RK, Wilson RD et al.; NICHD EATA Trial Group. Late first-trimester invasive prenatal diagnosis: results of an international randomized trial. Obstet. Gynecol. 103(6), 1164–1173 (2004).
  • Borrell A, Fortuny A, Lazaro L et al. First-trimester transcervical chorionic villus sampling by biopsy forceps versus mid-trimester amniocentesis: a randomized controlled trial project. Prenat. Diagn. 19(12), 1138–1142 (1999).
  • Ammälä P, Hiilesmaa VK, Liukkonen S, Saisto T, Teramo K, von Koskull H. Randomized trial comparing first-trimester transcervical chorionic villus sampling and second-trimester amniocentesis. Prenat. Diagn. 13(10), 919–927 (1993).
  • Wilson RD, Langlois S, Johnson JA; Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Mid-trimester amniocentesis fetal loss rate. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 29(7), 586–595 (2007).
  • Mennuti MT. Risks of second-trimester amniocentesis: why all the fuss 30 years later? Obstet. Gynecol. 111(3), 586–588 (2008).
  • Mann K, Ogilvie CM. QF-PCR: application, overview and review of the literature. Prenat. Diagn. 32(4), 309–314 (2012).
  • Hills A, Donaghue C, Waters J et al. QF-PCR as a stand-alone test for prenatal samples: the first 2 years’ experience in the London region. Prenat. Diagn. 30(6), 509–517 (2010).
  • Lo YM. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis by massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNA. Open Biol. 2(6), 120086 (2012).
  • Simpson JL. Invasive procedures for prenatal diagnosis: any future left? Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 26(5), 625–638 (2012).
  • Leschot NJ, Verjaal M, Treffers PE. Risks of midtrimester amniocentesis; assessment in 3000 pregnancies. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 92(8), 804–807 (1985).
  • Odibo AO, Gray DL, Dicke JM, Stamilio DM, Macones GA, Crane JP. Revisiting the fetal loss rate after second-trimester genetic amniocentesis: a single center’s 16-year experience. Obstet. Gynecol. 111(3), 589–595 (2008).
  • Kong CW, Leung TN, Chan LW et al. Risk factors for procedure-related fetal losses after mid-trimester genetic amniocentesis. Prenat. Diagn. 26(10), 925–930 (2006).

Websites

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.