Selective Chromosome Analysis in Couples with Two or More Miscarriages: Case-control Study

Overview

Journal BMJ

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2005 Jun 30

PMID 15985440

Citations 28

Authors

Maureen T M Franssen

Johanna C Korevaar

Nico J Leschot

Patrick M M Bossuyt

Alida C Knegt

Klasien B J Gerssen-Schoorl

Cokkie H Wouters

Kerstin B M Hansson

Ron Hochstenbach

Kamlesh Madan

Fulco van der Veen

Mariette Goddijn

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To identify additional factors, such as maternal age or factors related to previous reproductive outcome or family history, and the corresponding probability of carrying a chromosome abnormality in couples with two or more miscarriages.

Design: Nested case-control study.

Setting: Six centres for clinical genetics in the Netherlands.

Participants: Couples referred for chromosome analysis after two or more miscarriages in 1992-2000; 279 carrier couples were marked as cases, and 428 non-carrier couples served as controls.

Main Outcome Measures: Independent factors influencing the probability of carrier status and the corresponding probability of carrier status.

Results: Four factors influencing the probability of carrier status could be identified: maternal age at second miscarriage, a history of three or more miscarriages, a history of two or more miscarriages in a brother or sister of either partner, and a history of two or more miscarriages in the parents of either partner. The calculated probability of carrier status in couples referred for chromosome analysis after two or more miscarriages varied between 0.5% and 10.2%.

Conclusions: The probability of carrier status in couples with two or more miscarriages is modified by additional factors. Selective chromosome analysis would result in a more appropriate referral policy, could decrease the annual number of chromosome analyses, and could therefore lower the costs.

Citing Articles

The Value of Parental Karyotyping in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss Lies in Individual Risk Assessments.

Popescu-Hobeanu G, Serban Sosoi S, Cucu M, Streata I, Dobrescu A, Plesea R Medicina (Kaunas). 2024; 60(11).

PMID: 39596963 PMC: 11596323. DOI: 10.3390/medicina60111778.

Prevalence of karyotype alterations in couples with recurrent pregnancy loss in a tertiary center in Brazil.

Oliveira E, Cruzeiro I, de Souza C, Reis F Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2024; 46.

PMID: 38994459 PMC: 11239216. DOI: 10.61622/rbgo/2024rbgo51.

Australasian Recurrent Pregnancy Loss Clinical Management Guideline 2024 Part I.

Suker A, Li Y, Robson D, Marren A Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2024; 64(5):432-444.

PMID: 38934264 PMC: 11660023. DOI: 10.1111/ajo.13821.

Genetic counseling and diagnostic guidelines for couples with infertility and/or recurrent miscarriage.

Wyrwoll M, Rudnik-Schoneborn S, Tuttelmann F Med Genet. 2024; 33(1):3-12.

PMID: 38836211 PMC: 11006321. DOI: 10.1515/medgen-2021-2051.

Identifying discrepancies between clinical practice and evidence-based guideline in recurrent pregnancy loss care, a tool for clinical guideline implementation.

Youssef A, Lashley E, Vermeulen N, van der Hoorn M BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023; 23(1):544.

PMID: 37507697 PMC: 10386208. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-023-05869-y.

References

Hassold T, Hunt P . To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet. 2001; 2(4):280-91. DOI: 10.1038/35066065. View

Stephenson M, Awartani K, Robinson W . Cytogenetic analysis of miscarriages from couples with recurrent miscarriage: a case-control study. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17(2):446-51. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/17.2.446. View

de La Rochebrochard E, Thonneau P . Paternal age and maternal age are risk factors for miscarriage; results of a multicentre European study. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17(6):1649-56. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/17.6.1649. View

. ACOG practice bulletin. Management of recurrent pregnancy loss. Number 24, February 2001. (Replaces Technical Bulletin Number 212, September 1995). American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002; 78(2):179-90. DOI: 10.1016/s0020-7292(02)00197-2. View

Goddijn M, Joosten J, Knegt A, van derVeen F, Franssen M, Bonsel G . Clinical relevance of diagnosing structural chromosome abnormalities in couples with repeated miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 2004; 19(4):1013-7. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh172. View

Sachs E, Jahoda M, Van Hemel J, Hoogeboom A, Sandkuyl L . Chromosome studies of 500 couples with two or more abortions. Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 65(3):375-8. View

Hassold T, Chiu D . Maternal age-specific rates of numerical chromosome abnormalities with special reference to trisomy. Hum Genet. 1985; 70(1):11-7. DOI: 10.1007/BF00389450. View

Tharapel A, Tharapel S, Bannerman R . Recurrent pregnancy losses and parental chromosome abnormalities: a review. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985; 92(9):899-914. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1985.tb03069.x. View

Bourrouillou G, COLOMBIES P, Dastugue N . Chromosome studies in 2136 couples with spontaneous abortions. Hum Genet. 1986; 74(4):399-401. DOI: 10.1007/BF00280493. View

10.

Portnoi M, Joye N, van den Akker J, Morlier G, Taillemite J . Karyotypes of 1142 couples with recurrent abortion. Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 72(1):31-4. View

11.

Hook E, Healy N, Willey A . How much difference does chromosome banding make? Adjustments in prevalence and mutation rates of human structural cytogenetic abnormalities. Ann Hum Genet. 1989; 53(3):237-42. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-1809.1989.tb01790.x. View

12.

Smith A, Gaha T . Data on families of chromosome translocation carriers ascertained because of habitual spontaneous abortion. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990; 30(1):57-62. DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828x.1990.tb03197.x. View

13.

Nybo Andersen A, Wohlfahrt J, Christens P, Olsen J, Melbye M . Maternal age and fetal loss: population based register linkage study. BMJ. 2000; 320(7251):1708-12. PMC: 27416. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7251.1708. View

14.

De Braekeleer M, Dao T . Cytogenetic studies in couples experiencing repeated pregnancy losses. Hum Reprod. 1990; 5(5):519-28. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137135. View

15.

Cowchock F, Gibas Z, Jackson L . Chromosome errors as a cause of spontaneous abortion: the relative importance of maternal age and obstetric history. Fertil Steril. 1993; 59(5):1011-4. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)55920-2. View

16.

Clifford K, Rai R, Watson H, Regan L . An informative protocol for the investigation of recurrent miscarriage: preliminary experience of 500 consecutive cases. Hum Reprod. 1994; 9(7):1328-32. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138703. View

17.

Fryns J, Van Buggenhout G . Structural chromosome rearrangements in couples with recurrent fetal wastage. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1999; 81(2):171-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0301-2115(98)00185-7. View