Affiliation:
1. University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Department of Perinatology, Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Šlajmerjeva ulica 3 , Ljubljana , Slovenia
2. University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Medicine , Vrazov trg 2 , Ljubljana , Slovenia
3. Women’s Hospital Postojna , Prečna ulica 4 , Postojna , Slovenia
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Introduction: To estimate the procedure-related risks of pregnancy loss following chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis (AC) compared to pregnancies without procedure.
Methods
This cohort study enrolled all women who underwent CVS or AC at the Department of Perinatology, University Medical Centre, Ljubljana, Slovenia (from January 2013 to June 2015). For each group we obtained a maternal age and gestational age (11–14 weeks for CVS and >15 weeks for AC) for a matched control group without invasive procedures from the national database. The data was obtained from hospital records and telephone surveys concerning pregnancy outcomes. Pregnancy loss rates in intervention vs. control groups were compared by generating relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval.
Results
During the study period, 828 women underwent CVS and 2,164 women underwent AC. Complete outcome data was available in 2,798 cases (93.5%, 770 CVS, 2,028 AC). Pregnancy loss occurred in 8/770 (1.04%, 95% CI 0.4–2.0%) after CVS vs. 15/1130 (1.33%, 95% CI 0.8–2.2%) in matched control (RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.33–1.8, p=0.6). It occurred in 16/2028 (0.79%, 95% CI 0.5–1.3%) after AC vs. 14/395 (3.29%, 95% CI 2.1–5.8%) in matched control (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.11–0.45, p<0.0001).
Conclusion
The pregnancy loss rates after CVS and AC were comparable to losses in pregnancies without these procedures. With the increasing use of non-invasive prenatal testing, information that the invasive procedures are safe when indicated is essential.
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference19 articles.
1. Akolekar R, Beta J, Picciarelli G, Ogilvie C, D’Antonio F. Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45:16‐26. doi: 10.1002/uog.14636.
2. Anuwutnavin S, Chanprapaph P, Ruangvutilert P, Eammatta M, Tontisirin P. Short-term outcomes after second-trimester genetic amniocentesis in Siriraj Hospital. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;124:222‐5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.09.019.
3. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling. Green top guideline no. 8. Accessed March 13th, 2020 at: https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg_8.pdf
4. 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. 1986;1:1287‐93. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(86)91218-3.
5. Bakker M, Birnie E, Robles de Medina P, Sollie KM, Pajkrt E, Bilardo CM. Total pregnancy loss after chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis: a cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49:599‐606. doi: 10.1002/uog.15986.
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献