Fetal loss following invasive prenatal testing: a comparison of transabdominal chorionic villus sampling, transcervical chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis
-
Svenja Laura Niederstrasser
,
Kerstin Hammer
Abstract
Objective:
The aim of this study was to compare transabdominal chorionic villus sampling, transcervical chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis with respect to their total fetal loss rates.
Methods:
We retrospectively evaluated procedures of invasive prenatal testing performed during a 14-year period (2001–2014) including 936 amniocentesis procedures and 1051 chorionic villus samplings, of which 405 cases were executed transabdominally and 646 transcervically. Only singleton pregnancies before 24 weeks and 0 days of gestation where the pregnancy outcome was known were included. Fetal loss was defined as an abortion occurring either before 24 weeks and 0 days of gestation or <2 weeks after the procedure.
Results:
The total fetal loss rates were determined to be 1.73% for transabdominal chorionic villus sampling, 2.01% for transcervical chorionic villus sampling and 1.18% for amniocentesis. No statistically noticeable differences between the total fetal loss rates of all three procedures were found (P=0.399).
Conclusion:
Our study has shown that chorionic villus sampling (either transabdominal or transcervical) and amniocentesis are equal methods for invasive prenatal testing with respect to their abortion risk.
References
[1] Norwitz ER, Levy B. Noninvasive prenatal testing: the future is now. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2013;6:48–62.Search in Google Scholar
[2] Collins SL, Impey L. Prenatal diagnosis: types and techniques. Early Hum Dev. 2012;88:3–8.10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2011.11.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[3] Ekelund CK, Jorgensen FS, Petersen OB, Sundberg K, Tabor A, Danish Fetal Medicine Research Group. Impact of a new national screening policy for Down’s syndrome in Denmark: population based cohort study. Br Med J. 2008;337:a2547.10.1136/bmj.a2547Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[4] Boyd PA, Devigan C, Khoshnood B, Loane M, Garne E, Dolk H, et al. Survey of prenatal screening policies in Europe for structural malformations and chromosome anomalies, and their impact on detection and termination rates for neural tube defects and Down’s syndrome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;115:689–96.10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01700.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[5] Tabor A, Vestergaard CH, Lidegaard O. Fetal loss rate after chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis: an 11-year national registry study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34:19–24.10.1002/uog.6377Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[6] Alfirevic Z, Sundberg K, Brigham S. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;3:CD003252.10.1002/14651858.CD003252Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[7] Mujezinovic F, Alfirevic Z. Procedure-related complications of amniocentesis and chorionic villous sampling: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:687–94.10.1097/01.AOG.0000278820.54029.e3Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[8] Theodora M, Antsaklis A, Blanas K, Antsaklis P, Daskalakis G, Sindos M, et al. Risk for fetal loss and prematurity after 12,413 second trimester amniocenteses in a single center. J Perinat Med. 2015;43:347–51.10.1515/jpm-2014-0236Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[9] Jackson LG, Zachary JM, Fowler SE, Desnick RJ, Golbus MS, Ledbetter DH, 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. 1992;327:594–8.10.1056/NEJM199208273270903Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[10] Bilardo CM, Muller MA, Pajkrt E, Clur SA, van Zalen MM, Bijlsma EK. Increased nuchal translucency thickness and normal karyotype: time for parental reassurance. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;30:11–18.10.1002/uog.4044Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[11] Maiz N, Valencia C, Emmanuel EE, Staboulidou I, Nicolaides KH. Screening for adverse pregnancy outcome by ductus venosus Doppler at 11–13+6 weeks of gestation. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:598–605.10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181834608Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[12] 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. 2006;28:637–43.10.1002/uog.3809Search in Google Scholar
[13] 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;45:16–26.10.1097/OGX.0000000000000214Search in Google Scholar
[14] Tabor A, Alfirevic Z. Update on procedure-related risks for prenatal diagnosis techniques. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2010;27:1–7.10.1159/000271995Search in Google Scholar
[15] Snijders RJ, Sundberg K, Holzgreve W, Henry G, Nicolaides KH. Maternal age- and gestation-specific risk for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999;13:167–70.10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.13030167.xSearch in Google Scholar
[16] Smidt-Jensen S, Permin M, Philip J, Lundsteen C, Zachary JM, Fowler SE, et al. Randomised comparison of amniocentesis and transabdominal and transcervical chorionic villus sampling. Lancet. 1992;340:1237–44.10.1016/0140-6736(92)92946-DSearch in Google Scholar
[17] Harper LM, Cahill AG, Smith K, Macones GA, Odibo AO. Effect of maternal obesity on the risk of fetal loss after amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119:745–51.10.1097/AOG.0b013e318248f90fSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[18] Papantoniou NE, Daskalakis GJ, Tziotis JG, Kitmirides SJ, Mesogitis SA, Antsaklis AJ. Risk factors predisposing to fetal loss following a second trimester amniocentesis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;108:1053–6.Search in Google Scholar
[19] Kozlowski P, Knippel A, Stressig R. Individual risk of fetal loss following routine second trimester amniocentesis: a controlled study of 20,460 cases. Ultraschall Med. 2008;29:165–72.10.1055/s-2007-963217Search in Google Scholar PubMed
The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.
©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Fetal diagnosis and therapy: a continously evolving discipline
- Highlight articles
- Prenatally diagnosed fetal tumors of the head and neck: a systematic review with antenatal and postnatal outcomes over the past 20 years
- Prenatal screening for microcephaly: an update after three decades
- Fetal echocardiography: reference values for the Chinese population
- Multi-fetal pregnancy reduction (MFPR) to twins or singleton – medical justification and ethical slippery slope
- Combined screening test for trisomy 21 – is it as efficient as we believe?
- Fetal loss following invasive prenatal testing: a comparison of transabdominal chorionic villus sampling, transcervical chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis
- Comparison of adverse perinatal outcomes after single-needle and double-needle CVS techniques
- Prenatal decision-making in the second and third trimester in trisomy 21-affected pregnancies
- Role of collagen type IV in the pathogenesis of increased prenasal thickness in Down syndrome fetuses: sonographic and immunohistological findings
- Congenital diaphragmatic hernia: endotracheal fluid phospholipidic profile following tracheal occlusion in an experimental model
- Original articles
- The effect of intraumbilical fetal nutrition via a subcutaneously implanted port system on amino acid concentration by severe IUGR human fetuses
- Anti-inflammatory Elafin in human fetal membranes
- Recombinant vascular endothelial growth factor 121 injection for the prevention of fetal growth restriction in a preeclampsia mouse model
- Estimation of fetal weight by ultrasonography after preterm premature rupture of membranes: comparison of different formulas
- Congress Calendar
- Congress Calendar
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Fetal diagnosis and therapy: a continously evolving discipline
- Highlight articles
- Prenatally diagnosed fetal tumors of the head and neck: a systematic review with antenatal and postnatal outcomes over the past 20 years
- Prenatal screening for microcephaly: an update after three decades
- Fetal echocardiography: reference values for the Chinese population
- Multi-fetal pregnancy reduction (MFPR) to twins or singleton – medical justification and ethical slippery slope
- Combined screening test for trisomy 21 – is it as efficient as we believe?
- Fetal loss following invasive prenatal testing: a comparison of transabdominal chorionic villus sampling, transcervical chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis
- Comparison of adverse perinatal outcomes after single-needle and double-needle CVS techniques
- Prenatal decision-making in the second and third trimester in trisomy 21-affected pregnancies
- Role of collagen type IV in the pathogenesis of increased prenasal thickness in Down syndrome fetuses: sonographic and immunohistological findings
- Congenital diaphragmatic hernia: endotracheal fluid phospholipidic profile following tracheal occlusion in an experimental model
- Original articles
- The effect of intraumbilical fetal nutrition via a subcutaneously implanted port system on amino acid concentration by severe IUGR human fetuses
- Anti-inflammatory Elafin in human fetal membranes
- Recombinant vascular endothelial growth factor 121 injection for the prevention of fetal growth restriction in a preeclampsia mouse model
- Estimation of fetal weight by ultrasonography after preterm premature rupture of membranes: comparison of different formulas
- Congress Calendar
- Congress Calendar
