Premium
EP04.06: Contingent screening of the first trimester versus non‐invasive prenatal test: which strategy?
Author(s) -
Cosmi E.,
Duro E.,
Bongiorno M.,
Pinto F.,
Londero A.,
Visentin S.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.202
H-Index - 141
eISSN - 1469-0705
pISSN - 0960-7692
DOI - 10.1002/uog.21161
Subject(s) - medicine , prenatal screening , trisomy , obstetrics , prenatal diagnosis , pregnancy , cost effectiveness , gynecology , pediatrics , fetus , genetics , biology , risk analysis (engineering)
Methods 1719 patients were considered, with single pregnancy, who gave birth at a tertiary center in North-East Italy over a period of one year. The patients have been divided into 4 groups, based on the choice made at the first trimester screening: 1) no tests (47.7%); 2) ultrascreen (24.1%); 3) NIPT (14.1%); 4) invasive diagnosis (ID) (14.1%). Results In total 13 cases of Trisomy 21 were diagnosed (3 in patients not subjected to screening or prenatal diagnosis), and one case of trisomy 18. An estimate was then made of the costs associated with each group. Ultrascreen followed by ID in high-risk subjects (estimated cost/patient of € 112.34, with 5.58% of invasive investigations and DR of 90%). NIPT with execution of ID in highrisk subjects (estimated cost/patient of € 579.10, with 5.29% of invasive surveys and DR of 99.2%). Contingent test: ultrascreen with ID execution in patients with risk (≥ 1/50) and NIPT in patients: (A) with risk between 1/51 and 1/300 (estimated cost/patient of € 117.66, with 2 , 67% of invasive investigations and DR of 90%); (B) with risk between 1/51 and 1/1000 (estimated cost/patient of € 173.21, with 2.97% of invasive surveys and DR of 97%).