Obstetrics and gynecology · 1993
Should all pregnant patients be offered prenatal diagnosis regardless of age?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Druzin M L, Chervenak F, McCullough L B, Blatman R N, Neidich J A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the acceptance of prenatal genetic diagnosis by patients younger than 35 years old who are therefore not yet at great risk for non-disjunction trisomies based on maternal age.
METHODS: The patients were counseled regarding the following: 1) the age-related risk of chromosomal abnormalities, 2) the procedure-related risk of fetal loss, 3) clinical implications of chromosomal abnormalities, 4) the need for complete counseling by a certified genetic counselor, and 5) the patient expense of $600-1200 if third-party reimbursement was not available. Patients were recruited from the private practice of the senior author at the New York Hospital--Cornell Medical Center. Five hundred ninety-one patients were offered prenatal genetic diagnosis. The outcome measure was the patient's decision to undergo prenatal diagnosis even though the risk of a non-disjunction trisomy was expected to be low based on maternal age. Amniocentesis was performed in 128 patients and chorionic villus sampling in five.
RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three patients (22.5%) chose prenatal diagnosis. Karyotype was obtained in 131 procedures, but two were unsuccessful. One of the 131 karyotypes was abnormal and the patient chose to terminate the pregnancy.
CONCLUSIONS: The data showed the following: 1) Inappropriate influence of patients by the health provider was not evident; 2) routine offering of genetic diagnosis enhanced the autonomy of pregnant women; 3) the potential increase in the loss of pregnancies that accompanies this practice is ethically justified; and 4) there are no compelling cost-benefit objections to such a practice.
METHODS: The patients were counseled regarding the following: 1) the age-related risk of chromosomal abnormalities, 2) the procedure-related risk of fetal loss, 3) clinical implications of chromosomal abnormalities, 4) the need for complete counseling by a certified genetic counselor, and 5) the patient expense of $600-1200 if third-party reimbursement was not available. Patients were recruited from the private practice of the senior author at the New York Hospital--Cornell Medical Center. Five hundred ninety-one patients were offered prenatal genetic diagnosis. The outcome measure was the patient's decision to undergo prenatal diagnosis even though the risk of a non-disjunction trisomy was expected to be low based on maternal age. Amniocentesis was performed in 128 patients and chorionic villus sampling in five.
RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three patients (22.5%) chose prenatal diagnosis. Karyotype was obtained in 131 procedures, but two were unsuccessful. One of the 131 karyotypes was abnormal and the patient chose to terminate the pregnancy.
CONCLUSIONS: The data showed the following: 1) Inappropriate influence of patients by the health provider was not evident; 2) routine offering of genetic diagnosis enhanced the autonomy of pregnant women; 3) the potential increase in the loss of pregnancies that accompanies this practice is ethically justified; and 4) there are no compelling cost-benefit objections to such a practice.