Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

The Early Amniocentesis Study: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Early Amniocentesis versus Midtrimester Amniocentesis

Authors: Jo-Ann Johnson; J. Singer; Elizabeth J.T. Winsor; D. Kalousek; Jerome Dansereau; R. D. Wilson;

The Early Amniocentesis Study: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Early Amniocentesis versus Midtrimester Amniocentesis

Abstract

The primary purpose of this pilot study was to determine whether the safety of early amniocentesis (EA; 11 weeks to 12 weeks and 6 days) is similar to midtrimester amniocentesis (MA; 15 weeks to 16 weeks and 6 days). The secondary objectives were to determine the cytogenetic success and accuracy of EA compared with MA.This prospective, randomized clinical trial compared continuous ultrasound-guided EA and MA (22-gauge needle) in patients at a late maternal age (> or = 35 years). The procedures were compared for safety, success and accuracy.Among the 683 women randomized and followed to pregnancy completion, there was a total of 27/344 (7.8%) and 25/339 (7.4%) fetal losses (spontaneous and induced abortions) in the EA and MA groups, respectively (difference 0.4%; CI -3.6 to 4.4%). The rate of postprocedure spontaneous fetal loss was 2.4% (8/330) in the EA group and 3.3% (10/299) in the MA group (NS). The procedure success rate at the first attempt was 97.6% in the EA group and 99.7% in the MA group. There were no diagnostic errors, and all but 2 EA cultures were successful (both repeated successfully). The perinatal outcome was similar in both groups.EA appears to be as safe and accurate as MA. A large multicentered, randomized trial is currently underway to verify these results.

Keywords

Pregnancy Outcome, Pilot Projects, Risk Assessment, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Pregnancy, Karyotyping, Pregnancy Trimester, Second, Amniocentesis, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Female, Prospective Studies

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    51
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
51
Average
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author? Do you have the OA version of this publication?