33. Recurrent Spontaneous Abortion

  1. John T. Queenan MD1,
  2. Catherine Y. Spong MD2 and
  3. Charles J. Lockwood MD3
  1. Charles J. Lockwood MD

Published Online: 4 JAN 2012

DOI: 10.1002/9781119963783.ch33

Queenan's Management of High-Risk Pregnancy: An Evidence-Based Approach, Sixth Edition

Queenan's Management of High-Risk Pregnancy: An Evidence-Based Approach, Sixth Edition

How to Cite

Lockwood, C. J. (2012) Recurrent Spontaneous Abortion, in Queenan's Management of High-Risk Pregnancy: An Evidence-Based Approach, Sixth Edition (eds J. T. Queenan, C. Y. Spong and C. J. Lockwood), Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK. doi: 10.1002/9781119963783.ch33

Editor Information

  1. 1

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA

  2. 2

    Bethesda, MD, USA

  3. 3

    Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

Author Information

  1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

Publication History

  1. Published Online: 4 JAN 2012
  2. Published Print: 24 FEB 2012

ISBN Information

Print ISBN: 9780470655764

Online ISBN: 9781119963783

SEARCH

Keywords:

  • obstetric complications;
  • recurrent SAB, most challenging to manage;
  • pregnancy losses, prior to third trimester;
  • sporadic miscarriage and maternal age;
  • etiologies of recurrent SAB, and genetic abnormalities;
  • balanced translocations, with recurrent SAB, 30-fold;
  • single gene defects, promoting recurrent miscarriage;
  • müllerian tract anomalies and recurrent SAB;
  • inherited thrombophilias, and APA syndrome;
  • genetic factor identification

Summary

Patients with recurrent spontaneous abortion are among the most challenging to manage. The history of care for these patients has been strewn with nonevidence-based, anecdotal, and occasionally dangerous management approaches. The nomenclature of recurrent spontaneous abortion is confusing, with myriad different definitions extant. Prevalence estimates are compromised by the high background rate of pregnancy wastage in the general population which exceeds 50% when losses from conception through discernible embryonic development are included. A generally accepted number is that 1% of couples suffer two or more consecutive pregnancy losses prior to the third trimester.