Is chromosome testing of the second miscarriage cost saving? A decision analysis of selective versus universal recurrent pregnancy loss evaluation

Bernardi, Lia A.; Plunkett, Beth A.; Stephenson, Mary D.

doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.03.038

Cited by 55 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…15,16 Balanced translocations account for only 2-4% of recurrent pregnancy loss, 1,17 yet parental karyotypes represent the majority of screening costs. 3 As was the case in this study, uterine septae are the most prevalent findings on recurrent pregnancy loss screening. 5 However, unlike the others, there is evidence to support the role of metroplasty, 18,19 albeit not a randomized controlled trial.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

“…6,[22][23][24] Two analytic models demonstrate costeffectiveness of cytogenetic testing of the second loss rather than universal recurrent pregnancy loss screening. 2,3 Interestingly, the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends products of conception karyotype with the third loss and parental karyotypes only if it identifies a balanced translocation. 25 Studies show that SNP-microarray analysis of chromosome number is more accurate than a karyotype.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Comparative Genome Hybridization platforms have shown similar results, 27-29 but Comparative Genome Hybridization alone cannot identify maternal cell contamination. 3 Previously, no options existed for identification of all 24 chromosomes (22 autosomes, X, and Y) from nonviable tissue. Mathur 7 and Kudesia 8 successfully extend the application of Comparative Genome Hybridization to paraffin-embedded products of conception despite low-quality tissue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 The standard recurrent pregnancy loss screening is costly and low-yield. [2][3][4][5] Several analytic models demonstrate that cytogenetic analysis of the products of conception with the second loss would be highyield and cost-effective. 2,3 Furthermore, noneuploid results may identify women at lower risk for subsequent losses.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism–Microarray Ploidy Analysis of Paraffin-Embedded Products of Conception in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss Evaluations

Maslow

Budinetz

Sueldo

et al. 2015

Obstetrics & Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism–Microarray Ploidy Analysis of Paraffin-Embedded Products of Conception in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss Evaluations

Maslow

Budinetz

Sueldo

et al. 2015

Obstetrics & Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent study has shown that the use of selective RPL evaluation, defined as RPL evaluation if the second miscarriage is euploid, decreases health care costs when compared with universal RPL evaluation, defined as evaluation after the second miscarriage of ,10 weeks' size (Bernardi et al 2012). This proved true even in cases of advanced maternal age.…”

Section: Incorporation Of Genetic Testing Into the Care Of Couples Wimentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic Considerations in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss

Hyde

Schust

2015

Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Combination of QF‐PCR and aCGH is an efficient diagnostic strategy for the detection of chromosome aberrations in recurrent miscarriage

Lovrečić

Pereza

Jaklič

et al. 2019

Molec Gen & Gen Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOur aim was to conduct a comprehensive genetic evaluation using the combination of QF‐PCR (quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction) and aCGH (array comparative genomic hybridization) for the detection of the frequency and type of chromosome aberrations in recurrent miscarriage (RM) in the clinical setting.MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted on 73 first‐trimester products of conception (POC) between September 2014 and February 2017. The POCs were collected from 73 women with at least one previous miscarriage and analyzed for chromosomal anomalies using QF‐PCR and aCGH as part of the routine clinical evaluation.ResultsChromosome aberrations were detected in 52/73 POCs (71.2%), of which 41 (56.2%) were identified by QF‐PCR and an additional 11 (15.1%) by aCGH. Numerical aberrations constituted 92.3% of abnormalities, with trisomies as the most common subtype (72.9%). Causative structural aberrations were found in three samples (5.8%). The frequency of chromosome aberrations was not dependent on the number of previous miscarriages, whereas it significantly increased with advanced maternal age.ConclusionOur results confirm that chromosome aberrations are the most common cause of RM and that QF‐PCR and aCGH combination should be included in the routine genetic analysis of POCs of couples with miscarriage.

show abstract

Is chromosome testing of the second miscarriage cost saving? A decision analysis of selective versus universal recurrent pregnancy loss evaluation

Cited by 55 publications

References 21 publications

Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism–Microarray Ploidy Analysis of Paraffin-Embedded Products of Conception in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss Evaluations

Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism–Microarray Ploidy Analysis of Paraffin-Embedded Products of Conception in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss Evaluations

Genetic Considerations in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss

Combination of QF‐PCR and aCGH is an efficient diagnostic strategy for the detection of chromosome aberrations in recurrent miscarriage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About