Transabdominal Chorion Villus Biopsy Versus Amniocentesis for Diagnosis of Aneuploidy: Safety Is Not Enough
Chorion villus sampling (CVS) is well established as the optimal diagnostic method for diagnosis of single gene defects. However, the majority of invasive diagnostic procedures are not performed for these conditions of high genetic risk but are carried out for diagnosis of aneuploidy. In this paper we attempt to answer the question: will chorion villus biopsy replace amniocentesis as the most widely used test for the prenatal diagnosis of Down’s syndrome?
KeywordsPrenatal Diagnosis Miscarriage Rate Staff Time Amniotic Fluid Sample High Genetic Risk
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs, John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Lilford RJ, Maxwell D (1984) The development of a transcutaneous technique for chorion biopsy. Prenatal Diagnosis Group Newsletter: October, Queen Charlotte’s Hospital, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Lilford RJ, Irving HC, Linton G, Moran M (1987) Transabdominal chorion villus biopsy: 100 consecutive cases. Lancet i: 1415–1417Google Scholar
- Maxwell D, Lilford RJ, Czepulkowski BH, Heaton DE, Coleman DV (1986) Transabdominal chorionic villus sampling. Lancet i: 123–612Google Scholar
- McMay MB, Whitfield CR (1984) Amniocentesis. Br J Hosp Med 31: 406–416Google Scholar
- Medical Research Council Amniocentesis Working Party (1978) An assessment of the hazards of amniocentesis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 85: Suppl 2Google Scholar
- Tabor A, Madsen M, Obel EB, Philip J, Bang J, Nordgaard-Pedersen B (1986) Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet i: 1287–1293Google Scholar
- Thornton J, Lilford R, Howel D (1986). The safety of amniocentesis. Lancet ii: 226Google Scholar
- Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV, (eds) (1980) Clinical decision analysis. WB Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- Wilson Rd, Kendrick W, Wittman BK, McGillvray BC (1984) Risk of spontaneous abortion in ultrasonically normal pregnancies. Lancet ii: 290Google Scholar