Suppr超能文献

孕中期诊断性羊膜穿刺术:有多安全?

Diagnostic mid trimester amniocentesis: how safe?

作者信息

Seeds John W

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298, USA.

出版信息

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Aug;191(2):607-15. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.05.078.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Genetic mid-trimester amniocentesis is a common invasive procedure. The origin of the commonly quoted 0.5% rate of procedure-related pregnancy loss after amniocentesis is obscure and is in conflict with the only randomized prospective study that reported a procedure-related rate of loss of 1.0%. This review was performed to establish an estimate of procedure-related pregnancy loss after mid-trimester amniocentesis. The impact of placental puncture on the rate of loss and the risk of direct needle injury to the fetus were also examined.

STUDY DESIGN

The National Library of Medicine database was used to identify English language reports of >1000 amniocenteses with sufficient detail and follow up data to allow the calculation of the rate of spontaneous pregnancy loss after amniocentesis but before 28 completed weeks. These reports were divided into 2 groups to assess the impact of the ultrasound technique. Group I described only preamniocentesis ultrasound evaluation; group II described primarily concurrent ultrasound needle guidance. Pregnancy loss between the 2 groups was compared. The impact of placental puncture and reported direct fetal trauma were examined. The significance of differences was tested using chi-square analysis, with significance at a probability value of < or =.05.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine reports that totaled 68,119 amniocenteses were examined. In a comparison of all studies in group I with all studies in group II, there was a lower rate of loss after amniocenteses with the use of concurrent guidance (1.4%) compared with the use of preamniocentesis ultrasound evaluation (2.1%) that was significant ( P <.001). Among only the 5 controlled studies that used preamniocentesis ultrasound evaluation, the difference in rate of loss between amniocentesis patients and control subjects was 0.6% ( P =.0042; 95% CI, 0.19, 1.03), which was identical to the difference in the rate of loss of 0.6% between amniocentesis patients and control subjects from the 5 controlled studies that used concurrent ultrasound needle guidance ( P <.0001; 95% CI, 0.31, 0.90). Multiple case reports and small series of presumed fetal needle trauma were reviewed, but most of these attributed causation to the amniocentesis needle based only on circumstantial association. Two cases with direct evidence of fetal needle trauma are discussed. Finally, the rate of loss after placental puncture from among 9 reports that provided this detail was 1.4% and not different from the overall rate of loss that was noted in group II.

CONCLUSION

This examination of experience with 68,119 amniocenteses from both controlled and uncontrolled studies provides a substantive basis for several conclusions: (1) Contemporary amniocentesis with concurrent ultrasound guidance in controlled studies appears to be associated with a procedure-related rate of excess pregnancy loss of 0.6% (95% CI, 0.31, 0.90). To determine the total rate of loss, this must be added to the reported natural rate of loss without amniocentesis among control patients of 1.08%. (2) The use of concurrent ultrasound guidance appears to reduce the number of punctures and the incidence of bloody fluid. Concurrent ultrasound guidance was associated with a reduced rate of loss when all studies were compared, but not among controlled studies. (3) Direct fetal needle trauma is rare, and rarely proved, but may occur more frequently than is reported because of a failure to diagnose and a failure of the consistent production of sequelae. (4) This experience does not substantiate an increased rate of pregnancy loss if placental puncture is required.

摘要

目的

孕中期羊膜腔穿刺术是一种常见的侵入性操作。羊膜腔穿刺术后与操作相关的妊娠丢失率通常引用为0.5%,但其来源不明,且与唯一一项报告操作相关丢失率为1.0%的随机前瞻性研究结果相冲突。本综述旨在确定孕中期羊膜腔穿刺术后与操作相关的妊娠丢失率,并研究胎盘穿刺对丢失率的影响以及胎儿直接针刺损伤的风险。

研究设计

使用美国国立医学图书馆数据库,识别超过1000例羊膜腔穿刺术的英文报告,这些报告需有足够详细的信息和随访数据,以便计算羊膜腔穿刺术后至孕28周前的自然妊娠丢失率。这些报告分为两组以评估超声技术的影响。第一组仅描述羊膜腔穿刺术前的超声评估;第二组主要描述同时进行的超声引导穿刺。比较两组之间的妊娠丢失情况,并研究胎盘穿刺和报告的直接胎儿损伤的影响。使用卡方分析检验差异的显著性,显著性水平为概率值<或 = 0.05。

结果

共审查了29篇报告,总计68119例羊膜腔穿刺术。在第一组所有研究与第二组所有研究的比较中,使用同时超声引导的羊膜腔穿刺术后丢失率(1.4%)低于仅使用羊膜腔穿刺术前超声评估的情况(2.1%),差异具有显著性(P < 0.001)。在仅使用羊膜腔穿刺术前超声评估的5项对照研究中,羊膜腔穿刺术患者与对照受试者之间的丢失率差异为0.6%(P = 0.0042;95%可信区间,0.19,1.03),这与使用同时超声引导的5项对照研究中羊膜腔穿刺术患者与对照受试者之间0.6%的丢失率差异相同(P < 0.0001;95%可信区间,0.31,0.90)。回顾了多例病例报告和少量推测为胎儿针刺损伤的系列病例,但其中大多数仅基于间接关联就将病因归因于羊膜腔穿刺针。讨论了2例有胎儿针刺损伤直接证据的病例。最后,9篇提供此详细信息的报告中胎盘穿刺后的丢失率为1.4%,与第二组中观察到的总体丢失率无差异。

结论

对来自对照和非对照研究的68119例羊膜腔穿刺术经验的审查为以下几个结论提供了实质性依据:(1)在对照研究中,当代同时进行超声引导的羊膜腔穿刺术与操作相关的额外妊娠丢失率似乎为0.6%(95%可信区间,0.31,0.90)。要确定总丢失率,必须将此值加到对照患者中报告的无羊膜腔穿刺术时的自然丢失率1.08%上。(2)使用同时超声引导似乎可减少穿刺次数和血性液体的发生率。在所有研究进行比较时,同时超声引导与较低的丢失率相关,但在对照研究中并非如此。(3)胎儿直接针刺损伤很少见,且很少得到证实,但可能比报告的更频繁发生,因为存在诊断失败和后遗症产生不一致的情况。(4)如果需要进行胎盘穿刺,这一经验并未证实妊娠丢失率会增加。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验