Smidt-Jensen S, Permin M, Philip J, Lundsteen C, Zachary J M, Fowler S E, Grüning K
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lancet. 1992 Nov 21;340(8830):1237-44. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(92)92946-d.
We have compared three methods of prenatal diagnosis in two large obstetric centres in Denmark. Women were randomly assigned transabdominal (TA) chorionic villus sampling (CVS), transcervical (TC) CVS, or second-trimester amniocentesis (AC); women at high genetic risk were randomised between the two CVS groups only. Analysis of 45 epidemiological variables showed the three procedure groups to be similar at enrollment. All women were followed up until completion of pregnancy. Among 3079 women at low genetic risk total fetal loss rates were 10.9% for TC CVS, 6.3% for TA CVS, and 6.4% for AC (p < 0.001). More women had bleeding after the procedure in the CVS groups (p < 0.001), whereas more amniotic fluid leakage (p < 0.001) was reported after AC. No uterine infections occurred in any group. No case of oromandibular-limb abnormality was seen in the CVS groups, but 1 child in the AC group had aplasia of the right hand. The two CVS approaches were compared among 2882 women at low and high genetic risk who were found to have cytogenetically normal fetuses. Rates of unintentional loss after the procedure were 7.7% for TC CVS and 3.7% for TA CVS (p < 0.001; 95% Cl of difference 2.3-5.8%). At baseline ultrasound scanning after establishment of optimum sampling conditions, more TC than TA procedures (p < 0.001) were judged not to be feasible. We found that TA CVS allows better access to the placental site than TC sampling, is an easier skill to acquire, and has the potential that more villi can be aspirated when needed. The risk of fetal loss is similar after TA CVS and AC. However, losses after AC are at a later stage and are therefore more distressing. TA procedures remain the first choice for prenatal diagnosis. Since, in our hands, TC sampling carries a greater risk to the fetus, we have abandoned TC CVS in our two study centres.
我们在丹麦的两个大型产科中心比较了三种产前诊断方法。将妇女随机分配接受经腹(TA)绒毛取样(CVS)、经宫颈(TC)CVS或孕中期羊膜腔穿刺术(AC);高遗传风险的妇女仅在两种CVS组之间随机分配。对45个流行病学变量的分析表明,三个操作组在入组时相似。所有妇女均随访至妊娠结束。在3079名低遗传风险的妇女中,TC CVS的总胎儿丢失率为10.9%,TA CVS为6.3%,AC为6.4%(p<0.001)。CVS组术后出血的妇女更多(p<0.001),而AC术后报告的羊水渗漏更多(p<0.001)。任何组均未发生子宫感染。CVS组未见到口下颌肢体异常病例,但AC组有1名儿童右手发育不全。在2882名低遗传风险和高遗传风险且胎儿细胞遗传学正常的妇女中比较了两种CVS方法。术后意外丢失率TC CVS为7.7%,TA CVS为3.7%(p<0.001;差异的95%CI为2.3 - 5.8%)。在建立最佳取样条件后的基线超声扫描中,判定不可行的TC操作比TA操作更多(p<0.001)。我们发现,与TC取样相比,TA CVS能更好地到达胎盘部位,是一项更容易掌握的技术,并且有可能在需要时吸出更多绒毛。TA CVS和AC术后胎儿丢失风险相似。然而,AC术后的丢失发生在较晚阶段,因此更令人痛苦。TA操作仍然是产前诊断的首选。由于在我们手中,TC取样对胎儿的风险更大,我们在两个研究中心已放弃TC CVS。