First-trimester combined screening: experience with an instant results approach.

OBJECTIVE This study was undertaken to assess an instant results protocol for first-trimester combined screening. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective analysis of patients having first-trimester combined screening between Nov. 1, 2003 and Oct. 31, 2005. We evaluated the feasibility of patient self-collection and mail-in of blood samples before nuchal translucency ultrasound. Primary outcome was success with providing in-office, immediate screening results after the ultrasound. Predictor variables included age, ethnicity, insurance, and provider. The chi2 analysis was performed. RESULTS Two thousand three hundred ten women completed first-trimester combined screening, and 60.6% received instant results. When the biochemistry sample was collected at home, 80% received instant results. Age 35 years or older predicted instant results (P = .001), whereas ethnicity, insurance, and referring provider did not. Comparing the prior 24 months, clinic volume increased by 18%. Diagnostic procedure volume was unchanged, although chorionic villus sampling increased by 12% (P = .02) and amniocentesis decreased by 6% (P = .049). CONCLUSION Patients were able to obtain instant results in 60.6% of cases, which appeared to increase the use of chorionic villus sampling.

[1]  A. Walker,et al.  Genetic counseling gone awry: miscommunication between prenatal genetic service providers and Mexican-origin clients. , 2003, Social science & medicine.

[2]  A. Caughey,et al.  Nuchal translucency and first trimester biochemical markers for down syndrome screening: a cost-effectiveness analysis. , 2002, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[3]  R. Snijders,et al.  First-trimester screening for trisomies 21 and 18 , 2003 .

[4]  S. Michie,et al.  Low uptake of prenatal screening for Down syndrome in minority ethnic groups and socially deprived groups: a reflection of women's attitudes or a failure to facilitate informed choices? , 2005, International journal of epidemiology.

[5]  M. Kuppermann,et al.  Abortion attitudes of pregnant women in prenatal care. , 2005, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[6]  A. Rudnicka,et al.  First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down's syndrome. , 2005, New England Journal of Medicine.

[7]  N J Wald,et al.  First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down's syndrome: the results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS). , 2003, Health technology assessment.

[8]  K. Nicolaides,et al.  UK multicentre project on assessment of risk of trisomy 21 by maternal age and fetal nuchal-translucency thickness at 10–14 weeks of gestation , 1998, The Lancet.

[9]  N. Press,et al.  Characteristics of women who refuse an offer of prenatal diagnosis: data from the California maternal serum alpha fetoprotein blood test experience. , 1998, American journal of medical genetics.

[10]  S. Gregorich,et al.  Erratum: Beyond race or ethnicity and socioeconomic status: Predictors of prenatal testing for Down syndrome (Obstetrics and Gynecology (2006) 107, (1087-1097)) , 2006 .

[11]  A. Mackinson,et al.  First and Second Trimester Antenatal Screening for Down's Syndrome: The Results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS) , 2003, Journal of medical screening.

[12]  Susan Bewley.  Screening for fetal trisomies by maternal age and fetal nuchal translucency thickness at 10 to 14 weeks of gestation , 1996 .

[13]  D. Nelson,et al.  A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prenatal Screening Strategies for Down Syndrome , 2005, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  S. Gregorich,et al.  Beyond Race or Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status: Predictors of Prenatal Testing for Down Syndrome , 2006, Obstetrics and gynecology.