Database - (CIANE)

Description of this bibliographical database (CIANE website)
Currently 3111 records
➡ YouTube channel (tutorial)

https://ciane.net/id=868

Created on : 27 Jul 2004
Modified on : 27 Dec 2007

➡ Modify this record
Do not follow this link unless you know an editor’s password!

Bibliographical entry (without author) :

Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis. Cochrane Review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD003252.

Author(s) :

Alfirevic Z, Sundberg K, Brigham S.

Year of publication :

2003

URL(s) :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=…

Résumé (français)  :

Abstract (English)  :

BACKGROUND: A major disadvantage of second trimester amniocentesis is that the result is usually available only after 18 weeks’ gestation. Chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and early amniocentesis can be done between 9 and 14 weeks and offer an earlier alternative.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess comparative safety and accuracy of second trimester amniocentesis, early amniocentesis, transcervical and transabdominal CVS.

SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (March 2003) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2002).

SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised trials comparing amniocentesis and CVS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers assessed eligibility and trial quality and performed data extraction. We analysed the data using RevMan software.

MAIN RESULTS: A total of 14 randomised studies have been included. In a low risk population with a background pregnancy loss of around 2%, a second trimester amniocentesis will increase this risk by another 1%. This difference did not reach statistical significance, but the increase in spontaneous miscarriages following second trimester amniocentesis compared with controls (no amniocentesis) did (2.1% versus 1.3%; relative risk (RR) 1.02 to 2.52). Early amniocentesis is not a safe early alternative to second trimester amniocentesis because of increased pregnancy loss (7.6% versus 5.9%; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61) and higher incidence of talipes compared to CVS (1.8% versus 0.2%; RR 6.43, 95% CI 1.68 to 24.64).Compared with second trimester amniocentesis, transcervical CVS carries a significantly higher risk of pregnancy loss (14.5% versus 11%; RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.81) and spontaneous miscarriage (12.9% versus 9.4%; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.11). One study compared transabdominal CVS with second trimester amniocentesis and found no significant difference in the total pregnancy loss between the two procedures (6.3% versus 7%). Transcervical CVS is more technically demanding than transabdominal CVS with more failures to obtain sample and more multiple insertions.

REVIEWER’S CONCLUSIONS: Second trimester amniocentesis is safer than transcervical CVS and early amniocentesis. If earlier diagnosis is required, transabdominal CVS is preferable to early amniocentesis or transcervical CVS. In circumstances where transabdominal CVS may be technically difficult the preferred options are transcervical CVS in the first trimester or second trimester amniocentesis.

Sumário (português)  :

Resumen (español)  :

Comments :

Argument (français) :

L’amniocentèse au 2nd trimestre augmente le risque de fausse-couches de 1%, mais est moins risquée qu’au 1er trimestre.

Argument (English):

Argumento (português):

Argumento (español):

Keywords :

➡ evidence-based medicine/midwifery ; amniocentesis ; screening ; miscarriage ; trisomy

Author of this record :

Cécile Loup — 27 Jul 2004