Resultados perinatales tras prueba diagnóstica invasiva en el embarazo

IF 0.1 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
M.J. Sánchez González , P. Núñez Arcas , P.J. Sánchez Sánchez
{"title":"Resultados perinatales tras prueba diagnóstica invasiva en el embarazo","authors":"M.J. Sánchez González ,&nbsp;P. Núñez Arcas ,&nbsp;P.J. Sánchez Sánchez","doi":"10.1016/j.gine.2022.100823","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Invasive prenatal diagnostic techniques allow us to conduct genetic tests. The development of non-invasive techniques has reduced their use. The foetal loss rate following an invasive procedure is considered to be around 1%. The published data is heterogeneous however, although everything indicates that the risk has been overestimated, we need to conduct further studies.</p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>In our single-centre retrospective study we analysed the procedures carried out using invasive prenatal diagnostic techniques between 2011 and 2019. A total of 832 invasive techniques were performed. Perinatal results are compared with a control group of pregnant women (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->1734).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The early foetal loss rate for the different techniques were 1.1% for amniocentesis, 1.6% for transvaginal chorionic biopsy and 5% for abdominal chorionic biopsy, with a total rate of 1.1%, without statistically significant differences between them (<em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->.57). We found differences in foetal outcome, in terms of variable early foetal loss, related to the attempts made (when three attempts were made, the risk increased). When comparing the perinatal outcomes after delivery of the group that underwent techniques with the control group, a higher rate of caesarean sections was found in the study group (28.9% vs 20.5%), in addition to lower mean gestational age at delivery (38.33 vs. 38.95 weeks).</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>When the invasive technique is performed at the right time and with no more than two attempts, we consider that the risk of foetal loss is not affected, and is equal to that of the general population.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":41294,"journal":{"name":"Clinica e Investigacion en Ginecologia y Obstetricia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinica e Investigacion en Ginecologia y Obstetricia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0210573X22000752","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Invasive prenatal diagnostic techniques allow us to conduct genetic tests. The development of non-invasive techniques has reduced their use. The foetal loss rate following an invasive procedure is considered to be around 1%. The published data is heterogeneous however, although everything indicates that the risk has been overestimated, we need to conduct further studies.

Material and methods

In our single-centre retrospective study we analysed the procedures carried out using invasive prenatal diagnostic techniques between 2011 and 2019. A total of 832 invasive techniques were performed. Perinatal results are compared with a control group of pregnant women (n = 1734).

Results

The early foetal loss rate for the different techniques were 1.1% for amniocentesis, 1.6% for transvaginal chorionic biopsy and 5% for abdominal chorionic biopsy, with a total rate of 1.1%, without statistically significant differences between them (P = .57). We found differences in foetal outcome, in terms of variable early foetal loss, related to the attempts made (when three attempts were made, the risk increased). When comparing the perinatal outcomes after delivery of the group that underwent techniques with the control group, a higher rate of caesarean sections was found in the study group (28.9% vs 20.5%), in addition to lower mean gestational age at delivery (38.33 vs. 38.95 weeks).

Discussion

When the invasive technique is performed at the right time and with no more than two attempts, we consider that the risk of foetal loss is not affected, and is equal to that of the general population.

妊娠侵入性诊断测试后的围产儿结局
引言侵入性产前诊断技术使我们能够进行基因检测。非侵入性技术的发展减少了它们的使用。侵入性手术后的胎儿丢失率被认为约为1%。然而,公布的数据是异质的,尽管一切都表明风险被高估了,但我们需要进行进一步的研究。材料和方法在我们的单中心回顾性研究中,我们分析了2011年至2019年间使用侵入性产前诊断技术进行的手术。共实施了832项侵入性技术。将围产期结果与对照组孕妇(n=1734)进行比较。结果不同技术的早期胎儿丢失率分别为羊水穿刺1.1%、经阴道绒毛膜活检1.6%和腹部绒毛膜活检5%,总丢失率为1.1%,两者之间无统计学显著差异(P=.57),与所做的尝试有关(当进行了三次尝试时,风险增加)。在比较接受技术治疗组和对照组分娩后的围产期结果时,研究组的剖腹产率较高(28.9%对20.5%),此外分娩时的平均胎龄较低(38.33对38.95周)。讨论当在正确的时间进行侵入性技术,尝试次数不超过两次时,我们认为胎儿丢失的风险不会受到影响,与普通人群的风险相同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: Una excelente publicación para mantenerse al día en los temas de máximo interés de la ginecología de vanguardia. Resulta idónea tanto para el especialista en ginecología, como en obstetricia o en pediatría, y está presente en los más prestigiosos índices de referencia en medicina.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信