Chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis in 2008.
OBJECTIVE
Over the past decades there have been wide discrepancies between quoted risks of diagnostic procedures (chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis) yet little properly controlled and randomized data to back often dogmatic assertions. Here, we review the historical and current literature to determine realistic estimates.


RESULTS
Several papers this past year have addressed in cohort studies and meta-analyses composite risks for both chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis. The studies have had varying degrees of reliability and likely reproducibility.


CONCLUSIONS
Despite one outlier paper, which had major methodological flaws, the consensus of the modern literature is that in experienced hands there is little to no differences between the procedure risks of amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling. The latter, however, is clearly harder to learn and has a steeper learning curve.
Evans
Mark I
MI
Fetal Medicine Foundation of America, New York, New York, USA. Evans@CompreGen.com
Andriole
Stephanie
S
D000649:Amniocentesis / Q000009:adverse effects*; D015193:Chorionic Villi Sampling / Q000009:adverse effects*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D011247:Pregnancy; D011256:Pregnancy Outcome; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012307:Risk Factors