Bornstein Eran, Lenchner Erez, Donnenfeld Alan, Barnhard Yoni, Seubert David, Divon Michael Y
Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University Medical Center, New York, NY 10016, USA.
J Perinat Med. 2009;37(2):99-102. doi: 10.1515/JPM.2009.032.
Recent advances in prenatal screening, including first and second trimester genetic screening as well as targeted sonography, have significantly improved the detection of trisomy 21. Therefore, several investigators have questioned the validity of recommending genetic amniocentesis to all women who are 35 years or older at delivery. Thus, we sought to investigate the risks and benefits associated with performing genetic amniocentesis in women whose sole indication for testing was advanced maternal age (AMA).
A retrospective review of a Genzyme Genetics amniocentesis database (January 2006-December 2006) was performed. All specimens obtained from women of AMA as the sole indication were eligible for analysis. The amniocentesis-related potential fetal loss was calculated based on the traditional fetal loss rate of 1/200 as well as the recently published loss rate of 1/1600 procedures. Risk-benefit analysis was performed by comparing the number of trisomy 21 fetuses identified within the AMA group to the potential number of amniocentesis-related fetal losses within this group.
A total of 87,241 amniocentesis specimens were processed during the study period. AMA was the sole indication for genetic amniocentesis in 43,303 cases which formed the study group. In 399 (0.92%) of these cases, a trisomy 21 was identified. Assuming an amniocentesis related fetal loss rates of 1/200 or 1/1600; 217 or 27 fetal losses would have been expected, respectively.
Our analysis suggests that the benefit of genetic amniocentesis for the sole indication of AMA far outweighs the potential amniocentesis-related fetal loss rate, regardless of the actual rate one considers.
产前筛查的最新进展,包括孕早期和孕中期基因筛查以及针对性超声检查,显著提高了21三体综合征的检出率。因此,一些研究人员质疑向所有分娩时年龄在35岁及以上的女性推荐基因羊膜腔穿刺术的合理性。因此,我们试图调查在仅因产妇年龄偏大(AMA)而进行检测的女性中进行基因羊膜腔穿刺术的风险和益处。
对Genzyme Genetics羊膜腔穿刺术数据库(2006年1月至2006年12月)进行回顾性研究。所有从仅因AMA作为唯一指征的女性中获取的样本均符合分析条件。基于传统的1/200胎儿丢失率以及最近公布的1/1600操作丢失率计算羊膜腔穿刺术相关的潜在胎儿丢失率。通过比较AMA组中鉴定出的21三体胎儿数量与该组中羊膜腔穿刺术相关胎儿丢失的潜在数量进行风险效益分析。
在研究期间共处理了87241份羊膜腔穿刺术样本。在43303例病例中,AMA是基因羊膜腔穿刺术的唯一指征,这些病例构成了研究组。在其中399例(0.92%)病例中,鉴定出21三体。假设羊膜腔穿刺术相关胎儿丢失率为1/200或1/1600;分别预期会有217例或27例胎儿丢失。
我们的分析表明,无论考虑的实际比率如何,仅因AMA进行基因羊膜腔穿刺术的益处远远超过潜在的羊膜腔穿刺术相关胎儿丢失率。