๐”– Bobbio Scriptorium
โœฆ   LIBER   โœฆ

Comparison between CVS and early amniocentesis

โœ Scribed by P. Tavares; A. Tavares; P. Rendeiro; C. Palmares


Book ID
101236699
Publisher
John Wiley and Sons
Year
1998
Tongue
English
Weight
21 KB
Volume
18
Category
Article
ISSN
0197-3851

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

โœฆ Synopsis


Comparison between CVS and early amniocentesis

Cederholm and Axelsson's (1997) paper on the relative value of first-trimester transabdominal chorionic villus sampling (CVS) over early secondtrimester amniocentesis (EA) for prenatal diagnosis (PND) is at variance with most published results (Hansen et al., 1992;Henry and Miller, 1992). In Cederholm and Axelsson's report, in a series of 147 amniocenteses, spontaneous loss followed in 6โ€ข8 per cent and repeats reached 19โ€ข0 per cent. (On the other hand, ambiguous results were obtained in 4โ€ข6 per cent in the CVS series of 174 cases, against 0โ€ข7 per cent in EA material; the repeat rate was 5โ€ข2 per cent; and fetal loss occurred in 1โ€ข7 per cent.) With such values, it is not surprising that CVS appeared to fare better than amniocentesis. However, this is not the experience of the large majority of PND centres.

In our lab, for instance, in a series of 1012 amniotic fluids studied in 1996, the 131 collected at 10-13 weeks' pregnancy performed much better: spontaneous loss followed in 0โ€ข8 per cent of the cases and the success rate was 99โ€ข2 per cent, with a mean culture time and result of 10โ€ข1 days.

It would be interesting to try and detect the parameters for such a discrepancy: there will certainly be differences in the structure of the material from each series, which should be thoroughly analysed. We also put much emphasis on the experience of the person doing the EA sampling, on an exact estimation of gestational age, and on the lab's technique and ability.

From our point of view, in agreement with the majority of authors, under good conditions amniocentesis is still safer and performs better than CVS. We have little experience of CVS, but even comparing our EA data with Cederholm and Axelsson's CVS data, we do not feel it acceptable to perform a similar comparative study, since our abortion risk is so small after EA and the physician gets correct information within 7-10 days after sampling. In our opinion, the results published by the MRC Working Party (1991) remain a useful guideline for people working in this field.


๐Ÿ“œ SIMILAR VOLUMES


Safety of early amniocentesis versus CVS
โœ B. Eiben; B. Osthelder; W. Hammans; R. Goebel ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 1994 ๐Ÿ› The Lancet ๐ŸŒ English โš– 335 KB
Malformations and minor anomalies in chi
โœ Kaplan, Paige ;Normandin, Jean ;Wilson, Golder N. ;Plauchu, Henri ;Lippman, Abby ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 1990 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 487 KB

The frequency of abortion following chorionic villus sampling (CVS) is similar to that following amniocentesis. However, there is no information on long-term effects, such as malformations in liveborn children exposed to CVS. We evaluated 189 infants whose mothers had either CVS or amniocentesis as