Procedure‐related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 17 July 2014
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Vol. 45 (1) , 16-26
- https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14636
Abstract
Objectives To estimate procedure‐related risks of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) based on a systematic review of the literature and a meta‐analysis. Methods A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL and The Cochrane Library (2000–2014) was performed to review relevant citations reporting procedure‐related complications of amniocentesis and CVS. Only studies reporting data on more than 1000 procedures were included in this review to minimize the effect of bias from smaller studies. Heterogeneity between studies was estimated using Cochran's Q, the I2 statistic and Egger bias. Meta‐analysis of proportions was used to derive weighted pooled estimates for the risk of miscarriage before 24 weeks' gestation. Incidence–rate difference meta‐analysis was used to estimate pooled procedure‐related risks. Results The weighted pooled risks of miscarriage following invasive procedures were estimated from analysis of controlled studies including 324 losses in 42 716 women who underwent amniocentesis and 207 losses in 8899 women who underwent CVS. The risk of miscarriage prior to 24 weeks in women who underwent amniocentesis and CVS was 0.81% (95% CI, 0.58–1.08%) and 2.18% (95% CI, 1.61–2.82%), respectively. The background rates of miscarriage in women from the control group that did not undergo any procedures were 0.67% (95% CI, 0.46–0.91%) for amniocentesis and 1.79% (95% CI, 0.61–3.58%) for CVS. The weighted pooled procedure‐related risks of miscarriage for amniocentesis and CVS were 0.11% (95% CI, –0.04 to 0.26%) and 0.22% (95% CI, –0.71 to 1.16%), respectively. Conclusion The procedure‐related risks of miscarriage following amniocentesis and CVS are much lower than are currently quoted. Copyright © 2014 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Keywords
This publication has 49 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Number of Patients and Events Required to Limit the Risk of Overestimation of Intervention Effects in Meta-Analysis—A Simulation StudyPLOS ONE, 2011
- Non-invasive prenatal assessment of trisomy 21 by multiplexed maternal plasma DNA sequencing: large scale validity studyBMJ, 2011
- Prospective validation of first‐trimester combined screening for trisomy 21Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2009
- Evaluating the Rate and Risk Factors for Fetal Loss After Chorionic Villus SamplingObstetrics & Gynecology, 2008
- Diagnostic mid trimester amniocentesis: How safe?American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2004
- Risk of amniocentesis in women screened positive for Down syndrome with second trimester maternal serum markersPrenatal Diagnosis, 2002
- Early second trimester (13 to 20 weeks) transabdominal chorionic villus sampling (TA-CVS): a safe and alternative method for both high and low risk populationsPrenatal Diagnosis, 2002
- Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysisStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- Randomised study of risk of fetal loss related to early amniocentesis versus chorionic villus samplingThe Lancet, 1997
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986