PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 8309899

Randomized trial comparing first-trimester transcervical chorionic villus sampling and second-trimester amniocentesis.

Abstract

A total of 800 patients were randomized at the 9th to 11th week of pregnancy either for transcervical chorionic villus sampling (CVS) on the day of trial entry or for amniocentesis (AC) at the 16th week. The indication for fetal karyotyping was maternal age in 94 per cent of the cases; the mean maternal age was 39.2 years. An adequate sample was obtained in 98.3 per cent of the cases in the CVS group and in all cases in the AC group. Retesting was indicated in 3.3 per cent of the CVS cases. An abnormal karyotype was found in 6.1 per cent of the CV samples and in 4.5 per cent of the amniotic fluid samples. There was one false-positive chromosome result in both groups. Twelve (3.1 per cent) miscarriages occurred by the 22nd week of pregnancy in the CVS group in pregnancies intended to continue. No difference was seen between the groups for total fetal loss rates. The number of surviving infants in the CVS group was 92.2 per cent and in the AC group 91.7 per cent (rate difference 0.5 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval -3.3 to 4.3)). In our study, both the diagnostic accuracy and the risk of fetal loss were equal in the CVS and AC groups.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P Ammälä, V K Hiilesmaa, S Liukkonen, T Saisto, K Teramo, H von Koskull. 1993. Randomized trial comparing first-trimester transcervical chorionic villus sampling and second-trimester amniocentesis.. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1970131006

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Increased fetal loss in women with heritable thrombophilia.

BACKGROUND: A successful outcome of pregnancy requires an efficient uteroplacental vascular system. Since this system may be compromised by disorders of haemostasis associated with a prothrombotic state, we postulated that maternal thrombophilia might be a risk factor for fetal loss. We studied the relation between heritable thrombophilic defects and fetal loss in a cohort of women with factor V Leiden or deficiency of antithrombin, protein C, or protein S. METHODS: We studied 1384 women enrolled in the European Prospective Cohort on Thrombophilia (EPCOT). Of 843 women with thrombophilia 571 had 1524 pregnancies; of 541 control women 395 had 1019 pregnancies. The controls were partners of male members of the EPCOT cohort or acquaintances of cases. We analysed the frequencies of miscarriage (fetal loss at or before 28 weeks of gestation) and stillbirth (fetal loss after 28 weeks of gestation) jointly and separately. FINDINGS: The risk of fetal loss was increased in women with thrombophilia (168/571 vs 93/395; odds ratio 1.35 [95% Cl 1.01-1.82]). The odds ratio was higher for stillbirth than for miscarriage (3.6 [1.4-9.4] vs 1.27 [0.94-1.71]). The highest odds ratio for stillbirth was in women with combined defects (14.3 [2.4-86.0]) compared with 5.2 (1.5-18.1) in antithrombin deficiency, 2.3 (0.6-8.3) in protein-C deficiency, 3.3 (1.0-11.3) in protein-S deficiency, and 2.0 (0.5-7.7) with factor V Leiden. The corresponding odds ratios for miscarriage in these subgroups were 0.8 (0.2-3.6), 1.7 (1.0-2.8), 1.4 (0.9-2.2), 1.2 (0.7-1.9), and 0.9 (0.5-1.5). Significantly more pregnancy terminations had been done in women with thrombophilia than in controls (odds ratio 2.9 [1.8-4.8]); this discrepancy was apparent in nine of 11 participating centres and for all thrombophilia subgroups. INTERPRETATION: Women with familial thrombophilia, especially those with combined defects or antithrombin deficiency, have an increased risk of fetal loss, particularly stillbirth. Our findings have important implications for therapy and provide a rationale for clinical trials of thromboprophylaxis for affected women with recurrent fetal loss.

Abortion, Spontaneous

Human fetal gene therapy: moral and ethical questions.

This two-part paper discusses moral and ethical questions raised by future trials of human fetal gene therapy. The first part examines broad moral issues to explore whether fetal gene therapy is a morally praiseworthy goal. Ought it be done at all? These issues include (i) how the concept of fetal gene therapy originally arose as a goal envisioned at the beginning of prenatal diagnosis, (ii) preimplantation genetic diagnosis as a better preconceptual alternative for parents at higher genetic risk, (iii) alternatives to genetic abortions, (iv) the social and economic priority of fetal gene therapy, and (v) whether fetal gene therapy is a "slippery slope" that will end in germ-line gene therapy. This part concludes that far more reasons exist to commend fetal gene therapy than to reject it, given its limits and modest social and economic priority. The second part responds to specific ethical questions that must be raised about any protocol for human gene therapy. These questions and issues are adapted to the prenatal situation: (i) how the previable fetus becomes a "patient," (ii) concern for clinical benefit and minimizing risks to the fetus and pregnant woman, (iii) concern for the voluntary and informed participation of the pregnant woman, the father, and for protection of their privacy, (iv) concern for fair selection of subjects, (v) considerations of harm to germ line cells, and (vi) the role of public oversight of fetal gene therapy. The article concludes by recommending a continuation of the consolidated Recombinant Advisory Committee (RAC) for the near future.

Abortion, Spontaneous