Skip Navigation



Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published online on February 27, 2004
Human Reproduction, doi:10.1093/humrep/deh172
© 2004 by European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/4/1013    most recent
deh172v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goddijn, M.
Right arrow Articles by Leschot, N.J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Goddijn, M.
Right arrow Articles by Leschot, N.J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Received October 31, 2003
Accepted January 15, 2004

Article

Clinical relevance of diagnosing structural chromosome abnormalities in couples with repeated miscarriage

M. Goddijn 1*, J.H.K. Joosten 2, A.C. Knegt 3, F. van derVeen 1, M.T.M. Franssen 4, G.J. Bonsel 2, and N.J. Leschot 3

1 Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2 Department of Public Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3 Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O.Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
4 Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O.Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, The Netherlands

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: M.Goddijn{at}amc.uva.nl.


  Abstract

BACKGROUND: The annual number of parental karyotypes in cases of repeated miscarriage is increasing gradually in The Netherlands. The efficiency of offering parental karyotyping in couples with repeated miscarriage has not been evaluated before, especially not for the group with miscarriages at advanced maternal age. METHODS: A historical cohort study and nested case-control study were conducted, including couples with at least two miscarriages. Data were retrieved from medical records and telephone interviews. The obstetric follow-up was recorded for >=2 years after the parental chromosome analysis. Data were analysed to compare ratios of carrier/non-carrier couples in whom maternal age was >=36 or <36 years at the second, third or fourth and more miscarriage. A projected prevalence of carrier status of a structural chromosome abnormality was calculated by extrapolating the number of included patients to the original level of the total screening population. RESULTS: Forty-one couples with carrier status of a structural chromosome abnormality and 74 couples without carrier status were included. No unbalanced offspring arose after the detection of a structural chromosome abnormality. The risk of being a carrier was not significantly lower (as might be expected) when women were >=36 years. Ascertainment after two, three, or four and more miscarriages did not change these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Karyotyping of 1324 couples ascertained for repeated miscarriage did not yield an unbalanced fetal chromosome pattern after the ascertainment of parental carrier status. In women with advanced maternal age, the frequency of carrier status was not lower than in younger women.

Key words: Key words: maternal age/repeated miscarriage/structural chromosome abnormalities/translocation/unbalanced chromosome abnormalities


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
M. D. Stephenson and S. Sierra
Reproductive outcomes in recurrent pregnancy loss associated with a parental carrier of a structural chromosome rearrangement
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2006; 21(4): 1076 - 1082.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
M. T M Franssen, J. C Korevaar, F. van der Veen, N. J Leschot, P. M M Bossuyt, and M. Goddijn
Reproductive outcome after chromosome analysis in couples with two or more miscarriages: case-control study
BMJ, April 1, 2006; 332(7544): 759 - 763.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
M. Sugiura-Ogasawara and K. Suzumori
Can preimplantation genetic diagnosis improve success rates in recurrent aborters with translocations?
Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2005; 20(12): 3267 - 3270.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
M. T M Franssen, J. C Korevaar, N. J Leschot, P. M M Bossuyt, A. C Knegt, K. B J Gerssen-Schoorl, C. H Wouters, K. B M Hansson, R. Hochstenbach, K. Madan, et al.
Selective chromosome analysis in couples with two or more miscarriages: case-control study
BMJ, July 16, 2005; 331(7509): 137 - 141.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
M. Goddijn, H. Joosten, L. Knegt, F. van der Veen, M. Franssen, G. Bonsel, and N. Leschot
Reply to 'Reciprocal translocation carriers ascertained for recurrent miscarriage have a possibility to yield an unbalanced fetal chromosome pattern'
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2004; 19(9): 2172 - 2172.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
M. Sugiura-Ogasawara
Reciprocal translocation carriers in recurrent miscarriage parents may yield an unbalanced fetal chromosome pattern
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2004; 19(9): 2171 - 2172.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
H.J.A. Carp, M. Dirnfeld, J. Dor, and J.G. Grudzinskas
ART in recurrent miscarriage: preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening or surrogacy?
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2004; 19(7): 1502 - 1505.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.