Risks of midtrimester amniocentesis; assessment in 3000 pregnancies

Leschot, N. J.; Verjaal, M.; Treffers, P.E.

doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1985.tb03049.x

Cited by 69 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The rate of miscarriage among the study group was significantly higher than the control group (Tabor, Madsen, Obel, Philip, Bang, & Norgaard-Pedersen, 1986). Subsequent studies have shown risks ranging from 0.3% to 0.5%, (Leschot, Verjaal, & Treffers, 1985;Blessed, Lacoste, & Welch, 2001). …”

Section: Miscarriage Risk Associated With Amniocentesismentioning

confidence: 72%

Influence of Anchoring on Miscarriage Risk Perception Associated with Amniocentesis

Nuccio

Hashmi

Mastrobattista

et al. 2014

Journal of Genetic Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One factor women consider when deciding whether to pursue amniocentesis is the risk of miscarriage. People use mechanisms like anchoring, or the prior belief regarding the magnitude of risk, as a frame of reference for new information. This study aimed to determine a woman's perception of miscarriage risk associated with amniocentesis before and after genetic counseling and to determine what factors anchor a woman's perception of miscarriage risk. One hundred thirteen women being seen for prenatal genetic counseling and possible amniocentesis at six Houston clinics participated in the two‐part anonymous survey. While most women (56.7 %) perceived the risk as low or average pre‐counseling and indicated the numeric risk of amniocentesis as <1 %, significantly more patients (73 %) correctly identified the numeric risk as <1 % post‐counseling (p < 0.0001). However, the majority of patients’ qualitative risk perception did not change after the genetic counseling session (60 %). Those who changed their feeling about the risk after counseling showed a decreased perception of the risk (p < 0.0001). Participants who elected amniocentesis had a significantly lower perception of the risk (p = 0.017) whereas those who declined amniocentesis were more likely to view the risk as high (p = 0.004). The only two anchoring factors that had an effect were having a friend or relative with a personal or family history of a genetic disorder (p = 0.001) and having a child already (p = 0.038); both were associated with a lower risk perception. The lack of significant factors may reflect the uniqueness of each patient's risk assessment framework and reinforces the importance of genetic counseling to elucidate individual concerns, particularly as non‐invasive prenatal testing becomes more widely available and further complicates the prenatal testing landscape.

show abstract

Section: Miscarriage Risk Associated With Amniocentesismentioning

confidence: 72%

Influence of Anchoring on Miscarriage Risk Perception Associated with Amniocentesis

Nuccio

Hashmi

Mastrobattista

et al. 2014

Journal of Genetic Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The risk of miscarriage after amniocentesis is related to the experience of the operator, the size of the needle used, the number of times the needle is inserted, and other factors [2]. Several studies have evaluated the safety of m i d t r i m e s t e r a m n i o c e n t e s i s .…”

Section: S O M E O F T H E C O M P L I C a T I O N S A S S O C I A T mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prenatal Diagnosis of Chromosomal Abnormalities through Amniocentesis

Sago

2004

J.Mamm.Ova.Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T he i nc i de n ce o f ma jo r c hr o m os om e abnormalities in newborns isIn amniocentesis, amniotic fluid is withdrawn from the amniotic sac around the fetus. This is currently the most commonly performed invasive prenatal procedure used for diagnosing fetal genetic disorders. The first d i a g n o s i s o f D o w n s y n d r o m e b y m e a n s o f amniocentesis was reported in 1968 by Valenti et al. [1]. Amniocentesis has subsequently become the "gold standard" for invasive prenatal diagnostic tests. The amniotic fluid obtained in the procedure is used for a variety of analyses, the most common of which is a karyotype analysis from cultured amniotic fluid cells. This article reviews the area of prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis through amniocentesis. Safety of AmniocentesisThe procedure is most commonly performed between 16 and 20 weeks of gestation and is referred to as m id t r i me st e r a mn i oc e nt e s is . U n de r r e a l-t i me ultrasound guidance, a 22-gauge needle is inserted into the amniotic sac and approximately 20 ml of amniotic fluid is removed by aspiration. S o m e o f t h e c o m p l i c a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h amniocentesis include the leakage of fluid, cramping,bleeding, infection, and miscarriage. The risk of miscarriage after amniocentesis is related to the experience of the operator, the size of the needle used, the number of times the needle is inserted, and other factors [2]. Several studies have evaluated the safety of m i d t r i m e s t e r a m n i o c e n t e s i s . A p r o s p e c t i v e , nonrandomized study sponsored by the National Institute of Health found an overall loss rate of 3.5% between the time of the procedure and delivery compared to a loss rate of 3.2% in matched controls [3]. The first prospective randomized study known as "the Danish study" reported that the loss rate for the amniocentesis group was 1.7% compared to 0.7% in controls [4]. In this study, amniocenteses were performed with a 20-gauge needle (compared to a 22-gauge needle in other studies), which may be a factor in the increased loss rate. Most practitioners quote a procedure-related loss rate of 0.5% [5]. Incidence of Chromosome AbnormalitiesCombined surveys during the period 1969 to 1982 involving 68,159 livebirths found that 0.65 percent of newborns had major chromosomal abnormalities (Table 1) [6]. The most common of these were trisomy 21, Down syndrome, with an incidence of 0.12 percent of l i v e b o r n s . T h e n e x t m o s t c o m m o n w e r e s e x chromosome aneuploidies, with one XYY or XXY per

show abstract

“…La comparaison de ces résultats avec ceux rapportés dans la littérature est difficile parce qu'un grand nombre de publications ne font pas allusion de façon extensive aux motifs de consultation (Stene et al 1984;Leschot et al 1985;Tabor et al 1986;Fergusson-Smith et Yates 1984;Tabor et Philip 1987;Platt et al 1986;Eydoux et al 1989;Wolstenholme et al 1988;Jakobs et al 1990). Par contre, dans 14 articles, il m'a été possible de regrouper ces motifs selon l'une des 4 catégories mentionnées ci-dessus; les motifs qui n'entraient par dans l'une de ces catégories ont été regroupés dans la catégorie "autre".…”

Section: Motifs De Consultationunclassified

“…L'échographie ne se limite pas à déterminer l'âge de la grossesse, elle est un outil précieux au niveau du diagnostic prénatal car elle permet de diagnostiquer plusieurs anomalies. Dans toutes les études faites sur le diagnostic prénatal, il ressort une ligne de pensée commune: l'amniocentèse faite sous échographie limite souvent à une seule fois l'insertion de l'aiguille intra-amniotique (Tabor et al 1986;Leschot et al 1985). On sait que de multiples insertions favorisent la coloration du liquide amniotique par transport de sang; quelquefois des cellules maternelles peuvent contaminer le prélèvement et fausser le résultat.…”

Section: Solutionsunclassified

Amniocenteses et anomalies genetiques a l hopital de Chicoutimi

Hamel¹

1991

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risks of midtrimester amniocentesis; assessment in 3000 pregnancies

Cited by 69 publications

References 5 publications

Influence of Anchoring on Miscarriage Risk Perception Associated with Amniocentesis

Influence of Anchoring on Miscarriage Risk Perception Associated with Amniocentesis

Prenatal Diagnosis of Chromosomal Abnormalities through Amniocentesis

Amniocenteses et anomalies genetiques a l hopital de Chicoutimi

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About