-
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica... Nov 2020Emergency cerclage is the most common active intervention in pregnant women with cervical insufficiency. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Emergency cerclage is the most common active intervention in pregnant women with cervical insufficiency. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of emergency cerclage vs expectant management on maternal and perinatal outcomes, and to assess the current status of evidence.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A search was conducted from 1 June 2019 until 1 September 2019 and eligible studies were identified in the MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane and US clinical trials registry without limitations concerning the publication dates and languages. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs and observational studies comparing emergency cerclage with no cerclage/expectant management, in women presenting with painless cervical dilatation were included.
RESULTS
The electronic search yielded 3607 potential studies, of which 38 were fully reviewed and 12 observational studies (1021 participants) were included. Cerclage was superior to expectant management for the primary outcomes of preterm birth before 28 and 32 gestational weeks, OR 0.25 (95% CI 0.16-0.39, five studies, N = 392, I = 41%, low quality) and 0.08 (95% CI 0.02-0.29, four studies, N = 176, I = 51%, low quality), respectively. Cerclage was also superior to expectant management for the secondary outcomes of fetal loss OR 0.26 (95% CI 0.12-0.56, 8 studies, N = 455, I = 46%, very low-quality), pregnancy prolongation in days mean difference 47.45 (95% CI 39.89-55.0, 12 studies, N = 1027 I = 86%, very low quality), gestational age at birth in weeks mean difference 5.68 (95% CI 4.69-6.67, 9 studies, N = 892, I = 73%, very low quality), admission to neonatal intensive care OR 0.21 (95% CI 0.07-0.70, two studies, N = 79, I = 36%, very low quality) and neonatal death OR 0.12 (95% CI 0.04-0.34, five studies, N = 130, I = 0%, very low quality). There were no differences between cerclage and expectant management concerning premature rupture of membranes during or after the procedure OR 0.68 (95% CI 0.31-1.48, two studies, N = 155, I = 85%, very low quality) and chorioamnionitis OR 1.14 (95% CI 0.31-4.25, three studies, N = 88, I = 33%, very low quality).
CONCLUSIONS
Emergency cerclage in pregnant women with painless cervical dilatation seems to decrease preterm births, prolong the pregnancy, and decrease the neonatal deaths and fetal losses, but does not increase the risk of chorioamnionitis and premature rupture of membranes. Despite the extremely favorable estimates for cerclage, the results should be viewed with caution because, as a result of the lack of randomized control trials, the quality of evidence is low to very low.
Topics: Cerclage, Cervical; Emergencies; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Intensive Care, Neonatal; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Treatment Outcome; Uterine Cervical Incompetence; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 32757297
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13968 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Nov 2020To assess the rate of fetal loss following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) in twin pregnancy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the rate of fetal loss following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) in twin pregnancy.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies reporting procedure-related complications following amniocentesis or CVS in twin pregnancy. The primary outcome was the rate of procedure-related fetal loss. The secondary outcomes were fetal loss occurring before 24 weeks of gestation and fetal loss occurring within 4 weeks after the procedure. Head-to-head meta-analyses were used to compare directly each outcome, between women undergoing amniocentesis and those not undergoing amniocentesis and between women undergoing CVS and those not undergoing CVS, and to compute pooled risk differences (RD) between women exposed and those not exposed to each invasive procedure. Additionally, meta-analyses of proportions were used to estimate the pooled rates of each of the three outcomes in women undergoing amniocentesis or CVS and in controls.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies (3419 twin pregnancies undergoing and 2517 not undergoing an invasive procedure) were included. Head-to-head meta-analyses comparing directly twin pregnancies undergoing and those not undergoing amniocentesis showed a higher risk for overall fetal loss in those undergoing amniocentesis (odds ratio (OR), 1.46 (P = 0.04); RD, 0.013 (P = 0.04)), while there was no difference in the risk of either fetal loss before 24 weeks of gestation (OR, 1.59 (P = 0.06); RD, 0.010 (P = 0.11)) or fetal loss within 4 weeks after the procedure (OR, 1.38 (P = 0.3); RD, 0.003 (P = 0.8)). Overall, the pooled rate of fetal loss was 2.4% (95% CI, 1.4-3.6%) in twin pregnancies undergoing amniocentesis compared with 2.4% (95% CI, 0.9-4.6%) in those not undergoing amniocentesis. Head-to-head meta-analyses directly comparing twin pregnancies undergoing and those not undergoing CVS showed no significant difference in either overall fetal loss (OR, 1.61 (P = 0.5); RD, 0.003 (P = 0.8)) or fetal loss before 24 weeks of gestation (OR, 1.61 (P = 0.5); RD, 0.003 (P = 0.8)). Overall, the pooled rate of fetal loss was 2.0% (95% CI, 0.0-6.5%) in twin pregnancies undergoing CVS compared with 1.8% (95% CI, 0.3-4.2%) in those not undergoing CVS.
CONCLUSION
The risk of fetal loss following amniocentesis and CVS in twins is lower than reported previously and the rate of fetal loss before 24 weeks of gestation, or within 4 weeks after the procedure, did not differ from the background risk in twin pregnancy not undergoing invasive prenatal testing. These data can guide prenatal counseling for twin pregnancies undergoing invasive procedures. © 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Adult; Amniocentesis; Chorionic Villi Sampling; Female; Fetal Death; Humans; Odds Ratio; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Twin; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32632979
DOI: 10.1002/uog.22143 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology May 2020To examine the relationship between prenatal diagnostics (ultrasound examination and amniotic fluid Zika virus testing) and postnatal congenital Zika syndrome...
OBJECTIVE
To examine the relationship between prenatal diagnostics (ultrasound examination and amniotic fluid Zika virus testing) and postnatal congenital Zika syndrome abnormalities.
DATA SOURCES
Systematic searches were performed in 27 databases, including ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception to July 1, 2019, for articles with the keywords "Zika," "prenatal," "ultrasound," and "amniocentesis."
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
A total of 3,049 unique records were identified. Two reviewers independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full texts for relevance; 84 articles met the inclusion criteria. These articles describe 402 mother-fetus or mother-neonate dyads; 385 were included in the review of prenatal ultrasound examination, and 56 in the review of amniocentesis (39 in both).
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Among 195 fetuses with congenital Zika syndrome findings on prenatal ultrasound examination, postnatal congenital Zika syndrome abnormalities were reported for 153 (78%; 95% CI 7-84%). High proportions of microcephaly (76%; 95% CI 69-82%) and brain abnormalities (78%; 95% CI 69-86%) were confirmed postnatally. Among 190 fetuses without congenital Zika syndrome findings on prenatal ultrasound examination, 17% (95% CI 12-24%) had congenital Zika syndrome abnormalities identified postnatally. Structural congenital Zika syndrome abnormalities were identified postnatally in approximately equal proportions among dyads with and without Zika virus RNA detected in an amniotic fluid specimen (68% and 67%; 95% CI 52-82% and 95% CI 38-88%). In six pregnancies, Zika virus RNA was detected in amniotic fluid but not in a subsequent amniocentesis specimen.
CONCLUSION
Prenatal ultrasound examination frequently detects structural findings associated with Zika virus infection; however, not all abnormalities are detected, and some may represent transient findings. As with other congenital infections, prenatal detection may vary with timing of infection, timing of ultrasound examination, technical expertise, and severity of abnormalities. The detection of Zika virus RNA in amniotic fluid in the included studies did not predict the risk for congenital Zika syndrome abnormalities in these cases, and clearance of Zika virus RNA from amniotic fluid appears possible after maternal infection. Diagnostic testing for Zika virus infection remains a shared decision between patients and clinicians, and more data are needed to define clinical predictors that will inform these decisions.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, CRD42018080959.
Topics: Adult; Amniocentesis; Female; Fetal Diseases; Humans; Pregnancy; Ultrasonography, Prenatal; Young Adult; Zika Virus; Zika Virus Infection
PubMed: 32282593
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003829 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Oct 2019To estimate the procedure-related risk of miscarriage after amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) based on a systematic review of the literature and an... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the procedure-related risk of miscarriage after amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) based on a systematic review of the literature and an updated meta-analysis.
METHODS
A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library was carried out to identify studies reporting complications following CVS or amniocentesis. Eligible for inclusion were large controlled studies reporting data for pregnancy loss prior to 24 weeks' gestation. Study authors were contacted when required to identify additional necessary data. Data for cases that had an invasive procedure and controls were inputted into contingency tables and the risk of miscarriage was estimated for each study. Summary statistics based on a random-effects model were calculated after taking into account the weighting for each study included in the systematic review. Procedure-related risk of miscarriage was estimated as a weighted risk difference from the summary statistics for cases and controls. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the similarity in risk levels for chromosomal abnormality between the invasive-testing and control groups. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistic. Egger's bias was estimated to assess reporting bias in published studies.
RESULTS
The electronic search yielded 2943 potential citations, from which 12 controlled studies for amniocentesis and seven for CVS were selected for inclusion in the systematic review. A total of 580 miscarriages occurred following 63 723 amniocentesis procedures, resulting in a weighted risk of pregnancy loss of 0.91% (95% CI, 0.73-1.09%). In the control group, there were 1726 miscarriages in 330 469 pregnancies with a loss rate of 0.58% (95% CI, 0.47-0.70%). The weighted procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis was 0.30% (95% CI, 0.11-0.49%; I = 70.1%). A total of 163 miscarriages occurred following 13 011 CVS procedures, resulting in a risk of pregnancy loss of 1.39% (95% CI, 0.76-2.02%). In the control group, there were 1946 miscarriages in 232 680 pregnancies with a loss rate of 1.23% (95% CI, 0.86-1.59%). The weighted procedure-related risk of miscarriage following CVS was 0.20% (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.52%; I = 52.7%). However, when studies including only women with similar risk profiles for chromosomal abnormality in the intervention and control groups were considered, the procedure-related risk for amniocentesis was 0.12% (95% CI, -0.05 to 0.30%; I = 44.1%) and for CVS it was -0.11% (95% CI, -0.29 to 0.08%; I = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
The procedure-related risks of miscarriage following amniocentesis and CVS are lower than currently quoted to women. The risk appears to be negligible when these interventions were compared to control groups of the same risk profile. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Adult; Amniocentesis; Chorionic Villi Sampling; Chromosome Aberrations; Embryo Loss; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, Second; Prenatal Diagnosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 31124209
DOI: 10.1002/uog.20353 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Nov 2019To investigate the ultrasound characteristics and outcome of fetuses with non-visualization of the fetal gallbladder (NVFGB) followed in our tertiary university... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the ultrasound characteristics and outcome of fetuses with non-visualization of the fetal gallbladder (NVFGB) followed in our tertiary university hospital, and to provide a comprehensive review of the literature on prenatal findings and outcome of NVFGB.
METHODS
NVFGB was defined as non-visualization of the gallbladder on two targeted ultrasound examinations performed within a 1-week period. First, we reviewed the medical records of NVFGB cases managed in our center over a 9-year period. Then, we performed a systematic review of the literature to identify studies on NVFGB. The incidence of chromosomal anomalies, later visualization of the gallbladder, gallbladder agenesis, cystic fibrosis and biliary atresia was assessed in fetuses with isolated and non-isolated NVFGB. The role of hepatic enzyme measurements in the diagnosis of cystic fibrosis and biliary atresia in fetuses with NVFGB was also reviewed.
RESULTS
Sixteen cases of NVFGB were followed in our center, in 10 (62.5%) of which it was an isolated finding. The incidence of biliary atresia was 12.5% and that of gallbladder agenesis was 12.5%, while no case of cystic fibrosis was reported. The gallbladder was visualized later in pregnancy or postnatally in 43.8% and 25.0% of cases, respectively. A total of seven studies, including our cohort, involving a total of 280 NVFGB cases, met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Overall, 20.5% of fetuses had an associated ultrasound anomaly, and the incidence of chromosomal anomaly in this group was 20.4%. In cases with isolated NVFGB, the incidence of chromosomal anomaly was 1.9%. In fetuses with normal karyotype and isolated NVFGB, the gallbladder was later visualized in 70.4% of cases, while the incidence of gallbladder agenesis, cystic fibrosis and biliary atresia was 25.2%, 3.1% and 4.8%, respectively. In fetuses with non-isolated NVFGB, the incidence of cystic fibrosis and biliary atresia was 23.1% and 18.2%, respectively. The negative predictive value of amniotic fluid enzyme levels for the prediction of severe disease (including biliary atresia or cystic fibrosis) ranged between 94% and 100% when evaluated before 22 weeks' gestation, and dropped to 88% after 22 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS
In cases with persistent NVFGB, the risk of a severe postnatal condition should be considered. A detailed ultrasound scan should be offered and parents tested for cystic fibrosis gene mutation. An invasive procedure for karyotyping and measurement of liver enzyme concentrations before 22 weeks constitutes a reasonable work-up. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Topics: Amniocentesis; Biliary Atresia; Chromosome Aberrations; Cystic Fibrosis; Female; Gallbladder; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, Second; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Ultrasonography, Prenatal
PubMed: 30809885
DOI: 10.1002/uog.20252 -
Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics Sep 2018Clubfoot is a common congenital anomaly with multiple potential risk factors. Identification of modifiable risk factors may minimize future incidence of clubfoot. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Clubfoot is a common congenital anomaly with multiple potential risk factors. Identification of modifiable risk factors may minimize future incidence of clubfoot. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically review and analyze the best clinical evidence regarding risk factors associated with clubfoot.
METHODS
Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched from 1967 to May 11, 2016 for studies reporting risk factors for clubfoot. Randomized trials and observational studies were eligible for inclusion, and assessed in duplicate. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane risk of bias tool; low quality studies were excluded, all randomized trials were included. Two reviewers extracted data independently. This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Pooled effect estimates for the odds of clubfoot were calculated using random or fixed-effects models based on heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Forty-two studies (28 case-control, 10 cohort, 4 randomized trials) comprising 31,844 clubfoot cases and 6,604,013 controls were included. Risk factors associated with increased odds of clubfoot included maternal smoking [odds ratio (OR)=1.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.54-1.78], paternal smoking (OR=1.72; 95% CI, 1.05-2.84), maternal body mass index >30 (OR=1.46; 95% CI, 1.29-1.65), family history (OR=7.80; 95% CI, 4.04-15.04), amniocentesis (OR=2.08; 95% CI, 1.34-3.21), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor exposure (OR=1.78; 95% CI, 1.34-2.37) maternal single status (OR=1.17; 95% CI, 1.11-1.23), gestational diabetes (OR=1.40; 95% CI, 1.13-1.72), nulliparity (OR=1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.45), male sex (OR=1.68; 95% CI, 1.48-1.94), and aboriginal Australian race (OR=2.35; 95% CI, 1.63-3.38).
CONCLUSIONS
Smoking, maternal obesity, family history, amniocentesis, and some selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor exposures are the most clinically relevant exposures associated with increased odds of clubfoot, with family history representing the greatest risk. Recognition of modifiable risk factors may help in counseling patients, and minimizing clubfoot incidence.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level II.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Clubfoot; Cohort Studies; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Odds Ratio; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors
PubMed: 29917009
DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000001191 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Identification of the causes of stillbirth is critical to the primary prevention of stillbirth and to the provision of optimal care in subsequent pregnancies. A wide... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Identification of the causes of stillbirth is critical to the primary prevention of stillbirth and to the provision of optimal care in subsequent pregnancies. A wide variety of investigations are available, but there is currently no consensus on the optimal approach. Given their cost and potential to add further emotional burden to parents, there is a need to systematically assess the effect of these interventions on outcomes for parents, including psychosocial outcomes, economic costs, and on rates of diagnosis of the causes of stillbirth.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of different tests, protocols or guidelines for investigating and identifying the causes of stillbirth on outcomes for parents, including psychosocial outcomes, economic costs, and rates of diagnosis of the causes of stillbirth.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 August 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (15 May 2017).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs. We planned to include studies published as abstract only, provided there was sufficient information to allow us to assess study eligibility. We planned to exclude cross-over trials.Participants included parents (including mothers, fathers, and partners) who had experienced a stillbirth of 20 weeks' gestation or greater.This review focused on interventions for investigating and identifying the causes of stillbirth. Such interventions are likely to be diverse, but could include:* review of maternal and family history, and current pregnancy and birth history;* clinical history of present illness;* maternal investigations (such as ultrasound, amniocentesis, antibody screening, etc.);* examination of the stillborn baby (including full autopsy, partial autopsy or noninvasive components, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computerised tomography (CT) scanning, and radiography);* umbilical cord examination;* placental examination including histopathology (microscopic examination of placental tissue); and* verbal autopsy (interviews with care providers and support people to ascertain causes, without examination of the baby).We planned to include trials assessing any test, protocol or guideline (or combinations of tests/protocols/guidelines) for investigating the causes of stillbirth, compared with the absence of a test, protocol or guideline, or usual care (further details are presented in the Background, see Description of the intervention).We also planned to include trials comparing any test, protocol or guideline (or combinations of tests/protocols/guidelines) for investigating the causes of stillbirth with another, for example, the use of a limited investigation protocol compared with a comprehensive investigation protocol.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed trial eligibility independently.
MAIN RESULTS
We excluded five studies that were not RCTs. There were no eligible trials for inclusion in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently a lack of RCT evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions for investigating and identifying the causes of stillbirth. Seeking to determine the causes of stillbirth is an essential component of quality maternity care, but it remains unclear what impact these interventions have on the psychosocial outcomes of parents and families, the rates of diagnosis of the causes of stillbirth, and the care and management of subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth. Due to the absence of trials, this review is unable to inform clinical practice regarding the investigation of stillbirths, and the specific investigations that would determine the causes.Future RCTs addressing this research question would be beneficial, but the settings in which the trials take place, and their design, need to be given careful consideration. Trials need to be conducted with the utmost care and consideration for the needs, concerns, and values of parents and families. Assessment of longer-term psychosocial variables, economic costs to health services, and effects on subsequent pregnancy care and outcomes should also be considered in any future trials.
Topics: Cause of Death; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Stillbirth
PubMed: 29709055
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012504.pub2 -
Prenatal Diagnosis Dec 2017To review the literature for survival and phenotypes of liveborns with autosomal monosomy to inform decisions regarding transfer of in vitro fertilization-derived... (Review)
Review
Should embryos with autosomal monosomy by preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy be transferred?: Implications for embryo selection from a systematic literature review of autosomal monosomy survivors.
OBJECTIVE
To review the literature for survival and phenotypes of liveborns with autosomal monosomy to inform decisions regarding transfer of in vitro fertilization-derived embryos reported as monosomic on preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A).
METHOD
Ovid-Medline and EMBASE were systematically searched to identify published case reports of liveborn individuals with autosomal monosomy, full or mosaic, for a whole chromosome.
RESULTS
Fifty-three reports describing 56 individuals with autosomal monosomy met the selection criteria: 1 case each of monosomy 14 and 16, 3 each for monosomy 15 and 18, 1 for group "E", 5 for monosomy 20, 24 for monosomy 21, 7 for monosomy 22, and eleven for a "G" group chromosome. There were no reports with monosomy for the larger chromosomes 1 through 13, nor for chromosomes 17 or 19, autosomes with highest gene density. Most reported individuals had severe handicaps and died in infancy with some surviving longer.
CONCLUSION
Given potential for survival of handicapped individuals with autosomal monosomy for chromosomes 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 22, low priority should be given to transfer of embryos apparently monosomic for these chromosomes. Couples electing transfer of monosomic embryos should consider amniocentesis for ongoing pregnancies but should be informed of its limitations.
Topics: Contraindications, Procedure; Embryo Transfer; Humans; Live Birth; Monosomy; Mosaicism; Preimplantation Diagnosis
PubMed: 29164644
DOI: 10.1002/pd.5185 -
Minerva Ginecologica Apr 2018The aim of this paper was to estimate the risk of miscarriage after amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) based on a systematic review of the literature. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this paper was to estimate the risk of miscarriage after amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) based on a systematic review of the literature.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A search of Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library (2000-2017) was carried out to identify studies reporting complications following CVS or amniocentesis. The inclusion criteria for the systematic review were studies reporting results from large controlled studies (N.≥1000 invasive procedures) and those reporting data for pregnancy loss prior to 24 weeks' gestation. Data for cases that had invasive procedure and controls were inputted in contingency tables and risk of miscarriage was estimated for each study. Summary statistics were calculated after taking into account the weighting for each study included in the systematic review. Procedure-related risk of miscarriage was estimated as a weighted risk difference from the summary statistics for cases and controls.
EVIDENCE SNTHESIS
The electronic search from the databases yielded 2465 potential citations of which 2431 were excluded, leaving 34 studies for full-text review. The final review included 10 studies for amniocentesis and 6 studies for CVS, which were used to estimate risk of miscarriage in pregnancies that had an invasive procedure and the control pregnancies that did not. The procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis was 0.35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07 to 0.63) and that following CVS was 0.35% (95% CI: -0.31 to 1.00).
CONCLUSIONS
The procedure-related risks of miscarriage following amniocentesis and CVS are lower than currently quoted to women.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Amniocentesis; Chorionic Villi Sampling; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Pregnancy; Risk
PubMed: 29161799
DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4784.17.04178-8 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Nov 2017To systematically review studies reporting the risk of spontaneous abortion among pregnant women of typical reproductive potential with and without uterine leiomyomas. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review studies reporting the risk of spontaneous abortion among pregnant women of typical reproductive potential with and without uterine leiomyomas.
DATA SOURCES
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for publications from January 1970 to December 2016.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
We excluded studies that did not use imaging to uniformly document leiomyoma status of all participants, did not have a comparison group without leiomyomas, or primarily included women seeking care for recurrent miscarriage, infertility care, or assisted reproductive technologies.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Two authors independently reviewed eligibility, extracted data, and assigned overall quality ratings based on predetermined criteria. Of 1,469 articles identified, nine were eligible. Five enrolled general obstetric populations and four included women undergoing amniocentesis. In five studies in general obstetric populations that included 21,829 pregnancies (1,394 women with leiomyomas and 20,435 without), only one adjusted for potential confounders. This meta-analysis revealed no increase in risk of spontaneous abortion among those with leiomyomas compared with those without (11.5% compared with 8.0%; risk ratio 1.16, 95% CI 0.80-1.52). When bias from confounding was estimated for nonadjusted studies, the aggregate calculated risk ratio was 0.83 (95% CI 0.68-0.98).
CONCLUSION
Leiomyoma presence was not associated with increased risk of spontaneous abortion in an analysis of more than 20,000 pregnant women. Failure of prior studies to adjust for confounders may have led to the common clinical belief that leiomyomas are a risk factor for spontaneous abortion.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Abortion, Spontaneous; Adult; Female; Humans; Leiomyoma; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Neoplastic; Risk Factors; Uterine Neoplasms
PubMed: 29016496
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002313