Down's syndrome screening with nuchal translucency at 12(+0)-14(+0) weeks and maternal serum markers at 14(+1)-17(+0) weeks: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Sonographic and biochemical methods for Down's syndrome screening have developed simultaneously, but independently. As a consequence, the rate of invasive procedures for fetal karyotyping has dramatically increased and become an important public health issue which needs to be controlled. One approach is to combine sonographic and biochemical results into a single risk assessment. METHODS: In a multicentre interventional study, nuchal translucency (NT) was measured between 12(+0) and 14(+0) weeks of gestation. Maternal serum markers (MSM) were measured between 14(+1) and 17(+0) weeks of gestation. Karyotyping was advised when: (i) NT was > or =3 mm; or (ii) the MSM-related risk was > or =1 in 250 at term. Karyotyping was delayed until after a maternal blood sample had been taken. NT and MSM were expressed as multiples of the medians (MoMs), and risks were calculated and tailored to the study population. A combined risk for NT and MSM was estimated retrospectively. Costs per case diagnosed, and the cost per case averted were calculated for the three screening strategies. RESULTS: A total of 9444 women was screened. Twenty-one fetuses (0.22%) had Down's syndrome, whilst 326 women (3.4%) were lost to follow-up. Among 9118 women followed up, 5506 had both NT and MSM, 821 had only NT, and 2791 had only MSM. Median maternal age was 30.5 years. False-positive rates for NT, MSM and NT combined with MSM were 3.0, 5.8 and 0.23% respectively. The false-positive rate generated by a sequential two-stage screening was 8.6%. Detection rates of Down's syndrome were 62 and 55% for NT and MSM respectively. Seven cases with Down's syndrome (35%) had raised NT and MSM, and 17 (81%) had either raised NT, MSM, or both. For a 5% false-positive rate, detection rates were 55 and 80% for NT alone and for combined NT and MSM respectively. Ultrasound alone appears to be more cost-effective ( pound50 per case diagnosed) than both tests ( pound61 per case diagnosed). CONCLUSIONS: The study results suggest a 25% increase in the detection rate of Down's syndrome using a combination of NT measurement at 12(+0)-14(+0) weeks and MSM at 14(+1)-17(+0) weeks for a 5% false-positive rate, with modest increase in cost.

Induction of labour with a viable infant: a randomised clinical trial comparing intravaginal misoprostol and intravaginal dinoprostone.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of vaginal misoprostol (50 microg) with vaginal dinoprostone. DESIGN: Double-blind randomised trial. SETTING: Obstetrics Department, Poissy Hospital, France. PARTICIPANTS: 370 patients with medical indications for induction of labour. OUTCOME MEASURES: Vaginal deliveries within 24 hours, as well as time to vaginal deliveries, caesarean rates, costs, and fetal, neonatal and maternal condition. RESULTS: Compared with vaginal dinoprostone, vaginal misoprostol resulted in greater efficacy in several areas: vaginal delivery within 24 hours; time to vaginal delivery; and vaginal delivery within 12 hours. There was a non-significant increase in the caesarean section rate for fetal distress in the misoprostol group, but fewer caesarean sections for failed induction. Fetal tolerance was similar in the two groups, although significantly more neonates had a cord pH <7.20 and (non-significantly) none had meconium stained amniotic fluid in the misoprostol group. The incidence of poor neonatal outcome was similar in both groups. Subgroup analysis by indication for induction showed that the higher rates of arterial cord pH <7.20 and of meconium-stained amniotic fluid with misoprostol persisted only in possible fetal compromise. Poor neonatal outcome was less frequent in the misoprostol group in cases of induction for non-fetal indications. CONCLUSIONS: Vaginal misoprostol resulted in successful and earlier induction of labour more often than dinoprostone, but the safety of misoprostol raises some concern in potentially compromised infants. Misoprostol should be preferred to dinoprostone in cases of induction for non-fetal indications.