Maternal age, history of miscarriage, and embryonic/fetal size are associated with cytogenetic results of spontaneous early miscarriages

  • Nobuaki OzawaEmail author
  • Kohei Ogawa
  • Aiko Sasaki
  • Mari Mitsui
  • Seiji Wada
  • Haruhiko Sago



To clarify the associations of the maternal age, history of miscarriage, and embryonic/fetal size at miscarriage with the frequencies and profiles of cytogenetic abnormalities detected in spontaneous early miscarriages.


Miscarriages before 12 weeks of gestation, whose karyotypes were evaluated by G-banding between May 1, 2005, and May 31, 2017, were included in this study. The relationships between their karyotypes and clinical findings were assessed using trend or chi-square/Fisher’s exact tests and multivariate logistic analyses.


Three hundred of 364 miscarriage specimens (82.4%) had abnormal karyotypes. An older maternal age was significantly associated with the frequency of abnormal karyotype (ptrend < 0.001), particularly autosomal non-viable and viable trisomies (ptrend 0.001 and 0.025, respectively). Women with ≥ 2 previous miscarriages had a significantly lower possibility of miscarriages with abnormal karyotype than women with < 2 previous miscarriages (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.27–0.85). Although viable trisomy was observed more frequently in proportion to the increase in embryonic/fetal size at miscarriage (ptrend < 0.001), non-viable trisomy was observed more frequently in miscarriages with an embryonic/fetal size < 10 mm (aOR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.27–4.58), but less frequently in miscarriages with an embryonic/fetal size ≥ 20 mm (aOR, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.00–0.07) than in anembryonic miscarriages.


The maternal age, history of miscarriage, and embryonic/fetal size at miscarriage may be independently associated with the frequencies or profiles of cytogenetic abnormalities in early miscarriages.


Chromosomal abnormality Early miscarriage Maternal age Recurrent miscarriage Embryonic/fetal size 



We wish to thank Brian Quinn, editor-in-chief, Japan Medical Communication, for editing this manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

This study was approved by the institutional ethical committee to publicize the clinical findings of women and cytogenetic results of their miscarriages, in August 2015 (No. 991).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10815_2019_1415_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (12 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 12.1 kb)


  1. 1.
    Stephenson MD, Awartani KA, Robinson WP. Cytogenetic analysis of miscarriages from couples with recurrent miscarriage: a case-control study. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(2):446–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sorokin Y, Johnson MP, Uhlmann WR, Zador IE, Drugan A, Koppitch FC 3rd, et al. Postmortem chorionic villus sampling: correlation of cytogenetic and ultrasound findings. Am J Med Genet. 1991;39(3):314–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Page JM, Silver RM. Genetic causes of recurrent pregnancy loss. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;59(3):498–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eiben B, Bartels I, Bahr-Porsch S, Borgmann S, Gatz G, Gellert G, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of 750 spontaneous abortions with the direct-preparation method of chorionic villi and its implications for studying genetic causes of pregnancy wastage. Am J Hum Genet. 1990;47(4):656–63.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cowchock FS, Gibas Z, Jackson LG. Chromosome errors as a cause of spontaneous abortion: the relative importance of maternal age and obstetric history. Fertil Steril. 1993;59(5):1011–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hardy K, Hardy PJ, Jacobs PA, Lewallen K, Hassold TJ. Temporal changes in chromosome abnormalities in human spontaneous abortions: results of 40 years of analysis. Am J Med Genet A. 2016;170(10):2671–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grande M, Borrell A, Garcia-Posada R, Borobio V, Munoz M, Creus M, et al. The effect of maternal age on chromosomal anomaly rate and spectrum in recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(10):3109–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Segawa T, Kuroda T, Kato K, Kuroda M, Omi K, Miyauchi O, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of the retained products of conception after missed abortion following blastocyst transfer: a retrospective, large-scale, single-centre study. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;34(2):203–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ogasawara M, Aoki K, Okada S, Suzumori K. Embryonic karyotype of abortuses in relation to the number of previous miscarriages. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(2):300–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carp H, Toder V, Aviram A, Daniely M, Mashiach S, Barkai G. Karyotype of the abortus in recurrent miscarriage. Fertil Steril. 2001;75(4):678–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sullivan AE, Silver RM, LaCoursiere DY, Porter TF, Branch DW. Recurrent fetal aneuploidy and recurrent miscarriage. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):784–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu Y, Liu Y, Chen H, Du T, Tan J, Zhang J. The frequencies of the presence of embryonic pole and cardiac activity in early miscarriages with abnormal karyotypes. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2015;42(4):490–4.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu Y, Liu Y, Chen H, Li Q, Meng L, Chen L, et al. Relationship of karyotype to embryo crown-rump length and maternal serum human chorionic gonadotropin level in early miscarriage. Am J Perinatol. 2015;32(1):15–22.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stern JJ, Dorfmann AD, Gutierrez-Najar AJ, Cerrillo M, Coulam CB. Frequency of abnormal karyotypes among abortuses from women with and without a history of recurrent spontaneous abortion. Fertil Steril. 1996;65(2):250–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coulam CB, Stephenson M, Stern JJ, Clark DA. Immunotherapy for recurrent pregnancy loss: analysis of results from clinical trials. Am J Reprod Immunol. 1996;35(4):352–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morikawa M, Yamada H, Kato EH, Shimada S, Yamada T, Minakami H. Embryo loss pattern is predominant in miscarriages with normal chromosome karyotype among women with repeated miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(11):2644–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marquard K, Westphal LM, Milki AA, Lathi RB. Etiology of recurrent pregnancy loss in women over the age of 35 years. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(4):1473–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Choi TY, Lee HM, Park WK, Jeong SY, Moon HS. Spontaneous abortion and recurrent miscarriage: a comparison of cytogenetic diagnosis in 250 cases. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2014;57(6):518–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldstein M, Svirsky R, Reches A, Yaron Y. Does the number of previous miscarriages influence the incidence of chromosomal aberrations in spontaneous pregnancy loss? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30(24):2956–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmidt-Sarosi C, Schwartz LB, Lublin J, Kaplan-Grazi D, Sarosi P, Perle MA. Chromosomal analysis of early fetal losses in relation to transvaginal ultrasonographic detection of fetal heart motion after infertility. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(2):274–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lathi RB, Mark SD, Westphal LM, Milki AA. Cytogenetic testing of anembryonic pregnancies compared to embryonic missed abortions. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24(11):521–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Munoz M, Arigita M, Bennasar M, Soler A, Sanchez A, Borrell A. Chromosomal anomaly spectrum in early pregnancy loss in relation to presence or absence of an embryonic pole. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(7):2564–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cheng HH, Ou CY, Tsai CC, Chang SD, Hsiao PY, Lan KC, et al. Chromosome distribution of early miscarriages with present or absent embryos: female predominance. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(8):1059–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu Y, Liu Y, Zhang S, Chen H, Liu M, Zhang J. Etiology of spontaneous abortion before and after the demonstration of embryonic cardiac activity in women with recurrent spontaneous abortion. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;129(2):128–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ouyang Y, Tan Y, Yi Y, Gong F, Lin G, Li X, et al. Correlation between chromosomal distribution and embryonic findings on ultrasound in early pregnancy loss after IVF-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(10):2212–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Azmanov DN, Milachich TV, Zaharieva BM, Michailova GI, Dimitrova VG, Karagiozova ZH, et al. Profile of chromosomal aberrations in different gestational age spontaneous abortions detected by comparative genomic hybridization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;131(2):127–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Romero ST, Geiersbach KB, Paxton CN, Rose NC, Schisterman EF, Branch DW, et al. Differentiation of genetic abnormalities in early pregnancy loss. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45(1):89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ljunger E, Stavreus-Evers A, Cnattingius S, Ekbom A, Lundin C, Anneren G, et al. Ultrasonographic findings in spontaneous miscarriage: relation to euploidy and aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(1):221–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Simoni G, Brambati B, Danesino C, Rossella F, Terzoli GL, Ferrari M, et al. Efficient direct chromosome analyses and enzyme determinations from chorionic villi samples in the first trimester of pregnancy. Hum Genet. 1983;63(4):349–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Warburton D, Kinney A. Chromosomal differences in susceptibility to meiotic aneuploidy. Environ Mol Mutagen. 1996;28(3):237–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hussin J, Roy-Gagnon MH, Gendron R, Andelfinger G, Awadalla P. Age-dependent recombination rates in human pedigrees. PLoS Genet. 2011;7(9):e1002251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hassold T, Benham F, Leppert M. Cytogenetic and molecular analysis of sex-chromosome monosomy. Am J Hum Genet. 1988;42(4):534–41.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Quenby S, Vince G, Farquharson R, Aplin J. Recurrent miscarriage: a defect in nature’s quality control? Hum Reprod. 2002;17(8):1959–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Ozaki Y, Katano K, Suzumori N, Kitaori T, Mizutani E. Abnormal embryonic karyotype is the most frequent cause of recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(8):2297–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Angiolucci M, Murru R, Melis G, Carcassi C, Mais V. Association between different morphological types and abnormal karyotypes in early pregnancy loss. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(2):219–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Li X, Ouyang Y, Yi Y, Tan Y, Lu G. Correlation analysis between ultrasound findings and abnormal karyotypes in the embryos from early pregnancy loss after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(1):43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kroon B, Harrison K, Martin N, Wong B, Yazdani A. Miscarriage karyotype and its relationship with maternal body mass index, age, and mode of conception. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(5):1827–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang Q, Luo L, Lei Q, Lin MM, Huang X, Chen MH, et al. Low aneuploidy rate in early pregnancy loss abortuses from patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Reprod BioMed Online. 2016;33(1):85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    van den Berg MM, van Maarle MC, van Wely M, Goddijn M. Genetics of early miscarriage. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1822(12):1951–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lathi RB, Massie JA, Loring M, Demko ZP, Johnson D, Sigurjonsson S, et al. Informatics enhanced SNP microarray analysis of 30 miscarriage samples compared to routine cytogenetics. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e31282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lathi RB, Gustin SL, Keller J, Maisenbacher MK, Sigurjonsson S, Tao R, et al. Reliability of 46,XX results on miscarriage specimens: a review of 1,222 first-trimester miscarriage specimens. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(1):178–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ozawa N, Sago H, Matsuoka K, Maruyama T, Migita O, Aizu Y, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of spontaneously discharged products of conception by array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Springerplus. 2016;5(1):874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shah MS, Cinnioglu C, Maisenbacher M, Comstock I, Kort J, Lathi RB. Comparison of cytogenetics and molecular karyotyping for chromosome testing of miscarriage specimens. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(4):1028–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Maternal-Fetal, Neonatal and Reproductive MedicineNational Center for Child Health and DevelopmentTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations