New approach for estimating risk of miscarriage after chorionic villus sampling.

Objective: To estimate the risk of miscarriage associated with chorionic villus sampling (CVS).

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of women attending for routine ultrasound examination at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks' gestation at one of eight fetal-medicine units in Spain, Belgium and Bulgaria, between July 2007 and June 2018. Two populations were included: (1) all singleton pregnancies undergoing first-trimester assessment at Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca in Murcia, Spain, that did not have CVS (non-CVS group); and (2) all singleton pregnancies that underwent CVS following first-trimester assessment at one of the eight participating centers (CVS group). We excluded pregnancies diagnosed with genetic anomalies or major fetal defects before or after birth, those that resulted in termination and those that underwent amniocentesis later in pregnancy. We used propensity score (PS) matching analysis to estimate the association between CVS and miscarriage. We compared the risk of miscarriage of the CVS and non-CVS groups after PS matching (1:1 ratio). This procedure creates two comparable groups balancing the maternal and pregnancy characteristics that are associated with CVS, in a similar way to that in which randomization operates in a randomized clinical trial.

Results: The study population consisted of 22 250 pregnancies in the non-CVS group and 3613 in the CVS group. The incidence of miscarriage in the CVS group (2.1%; 77/3613) was significantly higher than that in the non-CVS group (0.9% (207/22 250); P < 0.0001). The PS algorithm matched 2122 CVS with 2122 non-CVS cases, of which 40 (1.9%) and 55 (2.6%) pregnancies in the CVS and non-CVS groups, respectively, resulted in a miscarriage (odds ratio (OR), 0.72 (95% CI, 0.48-1.10); P = 0.146). We found a significant interaction between the risk of miscarriage following CVS and the risk of aneuploidy, suggesting that the effect of CVS on the risk of miscarriage differs depending on background characteristics. Specifically, when the risk of aneuploidy is low, the risk of miscarriage after CVS increases (OR, 2.87 (95% CI, 1.13-7.30)) and when the aneuploidy risk is high, the risk of miscarriage after CVS is paradoxically reduced (OR, 0.47 (95% CI, 0.28-0.76)), presumably owing to prenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancies with major aneuploidies that would otherwise have resulted in spontaneous miscarriage. For example, in a patient in whom the risk of aneuploidy is 1 in 1000 (0.1%), the risk of miscarriage after CVS will increase to 0.3% (0.2 percentage points higher).

Conclusions: The risk of miscarriage in women undergoing CVS is about 1% higher than that in women who do not have CVS, although this excess risk is not solely attributed to the invasive procedure but, to some extent, to the demographic and pregnancy characteristics of the patients. After accounting for these risk factors and confining the analysis to low-risk pregnancies, CVS seems to increase the risk of miscarriage by about three times above the patient's background risk. Although this is a substantial increase in relative terms, in pregnancies without risk factors for miscarriage, the risk of miscarriage after CVS remains low and similar to, or slightly higher than, that in the general population. Copyright © 2020 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.