Invasive procedures for fetal karyotyping: no cause of subsequent gestational hypertension or pre‐eclampsia

Abstract

The aim was to estimate the risk of maternal hypertensive complications following first-or second-trimester invasive diagnostic procedures, i.e. chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis (AC). Odds ratios (ORs) for gestational hypertension, mild pre-eclampsia or severe pre-eclampsia were calculated for women who underwent CVS (n = 1 984) or AC (n = 21 748) compared with non-exposed women (n = 47 854). No increase in the development of gestational hypertension, mild pre-eclampsia or severe pre-eclampsia was observed. The results do not support an association between invasive procedures for fetal karyotyping and subsequent gestational hypertension or preeclampsia.Keywords Amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling, hypertension, pre-eclampsia, pregnancy.Please cite this paper as: Lindgren P, Cederholm M, Haglund B, Axelsson O. Invasive procedures for fetal karyotyping: no cause of subsequent gestational hypertension or pre-eclampsia.

Effect of chorionic villus sampling on the occurrence of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

“…On the other hand, three reports suggested that the risk for preeclampsia was increased after a CVS procedure (8,20,26). No significant effect of CVS on the risk of subsequent preeclampsia in either way was reported in the other four reports that were identified for our analysis (19,(21)(22)(23). Considerable heterogeneity was noted during pooling of the studies.…”

“…The grading scores of the investigations chosen for inclusion in this meta-analysis according to the checklist are shown in Table 5. The two investigations reported by Lindgren et al (23) and Maruotti et al (24) are conspicuous by the fact that their scores were low compared with the others. This finding was not expected, particularly for the Lindgren report given the large number of included subjects.…”

“…Our search of PubMed yielded nine studies that were eligible for consideration (8,(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26). All of the identified studies were used in pooling and calculation of effect sizes, where appropriate, according to the pregnancy complication ( Figure 1, Table 3).…”

“…For our analysis of the data from the collected nine studies (8,(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26), we created three pools of patients, as indicated previously. In the first two pooling groups, we did not find evidence of an increased risk for preeclampsia, severe preeclampsia, or gestational hypertension following the performance of first trimester CVS.…”

“…A significant difference was observed in the OR for preeclampsia between the CVS patient group and the midtrimester diagnostic amniocentesis patient group (2.47, 95% CI 1.14-5.33) (Figure 9). Moreover, in three of the included studies (8,20,23), data were available to evaluate merged acute pregnancy-induced hypertensive disorders in patients who only underwent midtrimester diagnostic amniocentesis. The prevalence rates of merged acute pregnancy-induced hypertensive disorders were 4.61% (322/6,983) in the CVS patient group and 3.74% (1,134/30,328) in the midtrimester diagnostic amniocentesis patient group.…”