Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 11, 44

Application of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Products of Miscarriage


Application of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Products of Miscarriage

Xiangyu Zhu et al. Mol Cytogenet.


Background: Chromosomal abnormality is one of the major cause of spontaneous abortion. Most available guidelines suggest genetic testing after three miscarriages, which has been proved to be difficult to adhere to and somewhat of low cost-effectiveness. As chromosomal microarray analysis has been recommended to be applied on miscarriage products, we managed a retrospective study on our experience investigate the potential impact of this technique on previous guidelines and our present management on miscarried couples and products.

Results: Of the 405 products of conceptions, the overall detection rate of pathogenetic results was 55.3% (224/405), including 7.1% (16/224) copy number changes which could be missed by conventional karyotyping analysis. Of the 222 natural conception samples, abnormal genetic results were found in 126 cases (56.8%). The detection rate in the assistant reproductive treatment group was 53.6% (98/183). No significant difference was found between these two groups (p = 0.645, OR = 1.110 with 95% CI: 0.713-1.726). The detection rate was 53.2% (75/141) in 141 product-of-conceptions (POCs) of mothers with adverse pregnancy histories. Of the 264 POC samples of mothers without abnormal pregnancy histories, 56.4% (149/264) were genetically abnormal. The detection rate and maternal age between these two groups were all compatible.

Conclusions: Chromosomal microarray testing should be referred to couples at their first miscarriage regardless of the way how they get pregnant.

Keywords: Chromosomal microarray analysis; Genetic testing; Microarray; Miscarriage; Spontaneous abortion.

Conflict of interest statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital.Not applicable.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Similar articles

See all similar articles


    1. Al-Asmar N, Peinado V, Vera M, Remohí J, Pellicer A, Simón C, et al. Chromosomal abnormalities in embryos from couples with a previous aneuploid miscarriage. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:145–150. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.03.035. - DOI - PubMed
    1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Management of recurrent early pregnancy loss. ACOG practice bulletin. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002;78:179–190. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7292(02)00197-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bernardi LA, Plunkett BA, Stephenson MD. Is chromosome testing of the second miscarriage cost saving? A decision analysis of selective versus universal recurrent pregnancy loss evaluation. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:156–161. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.03.038. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bhattacharya S, Townend J, Bhattacharya S. Recurrent miscarriage: are three miscarriages one too many? Analysis of a Scottish population-based database of 151,021 pregnancies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;150:24–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.02.015. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bianco K, Caughey AB, Shaffer BL, Davis R, Norton ME. History of miscarriage and increased incidence of fetal aneuploidy in subsequent pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1098–1102. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000215560.86673.22. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources