-
Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of... Jun 2017The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that all pregnant women be offered aneuploidy screening or diagnostic testing. A myriad of screening... (Review)
Review
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that all pregnant women be offered aneuploidy screening or diagnostic testing. A myriad of screening and testing options are available to patients based on their risk profile and gestational age. Screening options include traditional serum analyte screening, such as first-trimester screening or quadruple screening, and more recently, cell-free DNA. Diagnostic testing choices include chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis. The number of screening and diagnostic modalities complicates prenatal counseling for physicians and can be difficult for patients to grasp. Appropriate pretest and posttest counseling is important to ensure adequate understanding of results and ensure testing strategy is concordant with patient goals.
Topics: Amniocentesis; Aneuploidy; Chorionic Villi Sampling; Counseling; Female; Genetic Testing; Humans; Mass Screening; Pregnancy; Prenatal Diagnosis
PubMed: 28499534
DOI: 10.1016/j.ogc.2017.02.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017During pregnancy, fetal cells suitable for genetic testing can be obtained from amniotic fluid by amniocentesis (AC), placental tissue by chorionic villus sampling... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
During pregnancy, fetal cells suitable for genetic testing can be obtained from amniotic fluid by amniocentesis (AC), placental tissue by chorionic villus sampling (CVS), or fetal blood. A major disadvantage of second trimester amniocentesis is that the results are available relatively late in pregnancy (after 16 weeks' gestation). Earlier alternatives are chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and early amniocentesis, which can be performed in the first trimester of pregnancy.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to compare the safety and accuracy of all types of AC (i.e. early and late) and CVS (e.g. transabdominal, transcervical) for prenatal diagnosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (3 March 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 3 March 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised trials comparing AC and CVS by either transabdominal or transcervical route.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 16 randomised studies, with a total of 33,555 women, 14 of which were deemed to be at low risk of bias. The number of women included in the trials ranged from 223 to 4606.Studies were categorized into six comparisons: 1. second trimester AC versus control; 2. early versus second trimester AC; 3. CVS versus second trimester AC; 4. CVS methods; 5. Early AC versus CVS; and 6. AC with or without ultrasound.One study compared second trimester AC with no AC (control) in a low risk population (women = 4606). Background pregnancy loss was around 2%. Second trimester AC compared to no testing increased total pregnancy loss by another 1%. The confidence intervals (CI) around this excess risk were relatively large (3.2% versus 2.3 %, average risk ratio (RR) 1.41, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.00; moderate-quality evidence). In the same study, spontaneous miscarriages were also higher (2.1% versus 1.3%; average RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.52; high-quality evidence). The number of congenital anomalies was similar in both groups (2.0% versus 2.2%, average RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.39; moderate-quality evidence).One study (women = 4334) found that early amniocentesis was not a safe early alternative compared to second trimester amniocentesis because of increased total pregnancy losses (7.6% versus 5.9%; average RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61; high-quality evidence), spontaneous miscarriages (3.6% versus 2.5%, average RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.98; moderate-quality evidence), and a higher incidence of congential anomalies, including talipes (4.7% versus 2.7%; average RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.38; high-quality evidence).When pregnancy loss after CVS was compared with second trimester AC, there was a clinically significant heterogeneity in the size and direction of the effect depending on the technique used (transabdominal or transcervical), therefore, the results were not pooled. Only one study compared transabdominal CVS with second trimester AC (women = 2234). They found no clear difference between the two procedures in the total pregnancy loss (6.3% versus 7%; average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.23, low-quality evidence), spontaneous miscarriages (3.0% versus 3.9%; average RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.21; low-quality evidence), and perinatal deaths (0.7% versus 0.6%; average RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.51; low-quality evidence). Transcervical CVS may carry a higher risk of pregnancy loss (14.5% versus 11.5%; average RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.81), but the results were quite heterogeneous.Five studies compared transabdominal and transcervical CVS (women = 7978). There were no clear differences between the two methods in pregnancy losses (average RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.65; very low-quality evidence), spontaneous miscarriages (average RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.58; very low-quality evidence), or anomalies (average RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.12; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the evidence to low due to heterogeneity between studies. Transcervical CVS may be more technically demanding than transabdominal CVS, with more failures to obtain sample (2.0% versus 1.1%; average RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.82, moderate-quality evidence).Overall, we found low-quality evidence for outcomes when early amniocentesis was compared to transabdominal CVS. Spontaneous miscarriage was the only outcome supported by moderate-quality evidence, resulting in more miscarriages after early AC compared with transabdominal CVS (2.3% versus 1.3%; average RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.60). There were no clear differences in pregnancy losses (average RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.54; low-quality evidence), or anomalies (average RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.30; very low-quality evidence).We found one study that examined AC with or without ultrasound, which evaluated a type of ultrasound-assisted procedure that is now considered obsolete.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Second trimester amniocentesis increased the risk of pregnancy loss, but it was not possible to quantify this increase precisely from only one study, carried out more than 30 years ago.Early amniocentesis was not as safe as second trimester amniocentesis, illustrated by increased pregnancy loss and congenital anomalies (talipes). Transcervical chorionic villus sampling compared with second trimester amniocentesis may be associated with a higher risk of pregnancy loss, but results were quite heterogeneous.Diagnostic accuracy of different methods could not be assessed adequately because of incomplete karyotype data in most studies.
Topics: Amniocentesis; Chorionic Villi Sampling; Congenital Abnormalities; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Pregnancy Trimester, Second; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28869276
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003252.pub2 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Oct 2019To estimate the procedure-related risk of miscarriage after amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) based on a systematic review of the literature and an... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the procedure-related risk of miscarriage after amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) based on a systematic review of the literature and an updated meta-analysis.
METHODS
A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library was carried out to identify studies reporting complications following CVS or amniocentesis. Eligible for inclusion were large controlled studies reporting data for pregnancy loss prior to 24 weeks' gestation. Study authors were contacted when required to identify additional necessary data. Data for cases that had an invasive procedure and controls were inputted into contingency tables and the risk of miscarriage was estimated for each study. Summary statistics based on a random-effects model were calculated after taking into account the weighting for each study included in the systematic review. Procedure-related risk of miscarriage was estimated as a weighted risk difference from the summary statistics for cases and controls. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the similarity in risk levels for chromosomal abnormality between the invasive-testing and control groups. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistic. Egger's bias was estimated to assess reporting bias in published studies.
RESULTS
The electronic search yielded 2943 potential citations, from which 12 controlled studies for amniocentesis and seven for CVS were selected for inclusion in the systematic review. A total of 580 miscarriages occurred following 63 723 amniocentesis procedures, resulting in a weighted risk of pregnancy loss of 0.91% (95% CI, 0.73-1.09%). In the control group, there were 1726 miscarriages in 330 469 pregnancies with a loss rate of 0.58% (95% CI, 0.47-0.70%). The weighted procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis was 0.30% (95% CI, 0.11-0.49%; I = 70.1%). A total of 163 miscarriages occurred following 13 011 CVS procedures, resulting in a risk of pregnancy loss of 1.39% (95% CI, 0.76-2.02%). In the control group, there were 1946 miscarriages in 232 680 pregnancies with a loss rate of 1.23% (95% CI, 0.86-1.59%). The weighted procedure-related risk of miscarriage following CVS was 0.20% (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.52%; I = 52.7%). However, when studies including only women with similar risk profiles for chromosomal abnormality in the intervention and control groups were considered, the procedure-related risk for amniocentesis was 0.12% (95% CI, -0.05 to 0.30%; I = 44.1%) and for CVS it was -0.11% (95% CI, -0.29 to 0.08%; I = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
The procedure-related risks of miscarriage following amniocentesis and CVS are lower than currently quoted to women. The risk appears to be negligible when these interventions were compared to control groups of the same risk profile. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Adult; Amniocentesis; Chorionic Villi Sampling; Chromosome Aberrations; Embryo Loss; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, Second; Prenatal Diagnosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 31124209
DOI: 10.1002/uog.20353 -
Journal of Perinatology : Official... Jul 2020Many genetic disorders are detectable in the prenatal period, and the capacity to identify them has increased remarkably as molecular genetic testing techniques continue... (Review)
Review
Many genetic disorders are detectable in the prenatal period, and the capacity to identify them has increased remarkably as molecular genetic testing techniques continue to improve and become incorporated into clinical practice. The indications for prenatal genetic testing vary widely, including follow-up of an anomaly found by routine ultrasound or maternal aneuploidy screening, a family history of genetic disease, advanced maternal or paternal age, or evaluation of a low-risk pregnancy due to parental concern. The interpretation of genetic variants identified in the prenatal period poses unique challenges due to the lack of ability for deep phenotyping as well as the option to make critical decisions regarding pregnancy continuation and perinatal management. In this review, we address the various modalities currently available and commonly used for genetic testing, including preimplantation genetic testing of embryos, cell-free DNA testing, and diagnostic procedures such as chorionic villous sampling, amniocentesis, or percutaneous umbilical blood sampling, from which samples may be sent for a wide variety of genetic tests. We discuss the difference between these modalities for the genetic diagnosis of a fetus, their strengths and weaknesses, and strategies for their optimal use in order to direct perinatal care.
Topics: Amniocentesis; Aneuploidy; Female; Fetus; Genetic Testing; Humans; Pregnancy; Prenatal Diagnosis
PubMed: 32094481
DOI: 10.1038/s41372-020-0627-z -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Feb 2023Cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA is detectable in the amniotic fluid collected by amniocentesis in cases in which the fetus has been infected. However, cases of congenital... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA is detectable in the amniotic fluid collected by amniocentesis in cases in which the fetus has been infected. However, cases of congenital neonatal CMV infection with a negative amniocentesis result have also been reported in the literature. The aim of the present study was to compare pregnancies with a negative amniocentesis result to those with a positive amniocentesis result in terms of incidence of fetal insult and long-term sequelae.
METHODS
Observational studies that included pregnant women with CMV infection who underwent amniocentesis and that reported their results together with neonatal and/or long-term outcomes of the offspring were included. The risk of bias in included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The rate of severe symptoms at birth, defined as neurological symptoms or multiorgan involvement at birth, and the rate of severe sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and/or neurodevelopmental impairment at follow-up were the main outcomes of the study. The secondary outcome was the rate of pregnancy termination due to the presence of CMV-associated central nervous system (CNS) findings or multiorgan involvement on ultrasound/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
RESULTS
Seven studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled false-negative rate of amniocentesis was 8.0% (95% CI, 5.0-13.0%). The pooled rate of severe symptoms at birth was 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0-1.0%; I = 0%) in fetuses with a negative amniocentesis result and 22.0% (95% CI, 11.0-38.0%; I = 75%) in those with a positive amniocentesis result. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01-0.10; I = 0%). The pooled rate of severe SNHL and/or neurodevelopmental impairment at follow-up in fetuses with a negative amniocentesis result was 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0-1.0%; I = 0%) and, in those with a positive amniocentesis result, it was 14.0% (95% CI, 7.0-26.0%; I = 64%). The pooled OR was 0.04 (95% CI, 0.01-0.14; I = 0%). The pooled rate of pregnancy termination due to the presence of CMV-associated CNS findings or multiorgan involvement on ultrasound/MRI was 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0-2.0%; I = 0%) in fetuses with a negative amniocentesis result and 20.0% (95% CI, 10.0-36.0%; I = 82%) in those with a positive amniocentesis result. The pooled OR was 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01-0.08; I = 0%). A subgroup analysis including only pregnancies with primary CMV infection and a sensitivity analysis including only prospective studies were carried out, showing very similar results to those of the main analysis.
CONCLUSION
A negative amniocentesis result in pregnant women with CMV infection ensures lack of fetal insult and long-term sequelae to the child, even if transmission has occurred. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Child; Pregnancy; Infant; Female; Humans; Amniocentesis; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Prospective Studies; Cytomegalovirus; Cytomegalovirus Infections; Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36412976
DOI: 10.1002/uog.26128 -
The National Medical Journal of India 1992
Topics: Amniocentesis; Clinical Protocols; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, Second; Pregnancy Trimester, Third; Specimen Handling
PubMed: 1304245
DOI: No ID Found -
British Medical Journal Jul 1964
Topics: Amniocentesis; Female; Humans; Pregnancy
PubMed: 14150882
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.2.5402.136 -
Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics &... Aug 2015Prenatal examination plays an important role in present medical diagnosis. It provides information on fetal health status as well as the diagnosis of fetal treatment... (Review)
Review
Prenatal examination plays an important role in present medical diagnosis. It provides information on fetal health status as well as the diagnosis of fetal treatment feasibility. The diagnosis can provide peace of mind for the perspective mother. Timely pregnancy termination diagnosis can also be determined if required. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling are two widely used invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures. To obtain complete fetal genetic information and avoid endangering the fetus, noninvasive prenatal diagnosis has become the vital goal of prenatal diagnosis. However, the development of a high-efficiency separation technology is required to obtain the scarce fetal cells from maternal circulation. In recent years, the rapid development of microfluidic systems has provided an effective method for fetal cell separation. Advantages such as rapid analysis of small samples, low cost, and various designs, greatly enhance the efficiency and convenience of using microfluidic systems for cell separation. In addition, microfluidic disks can be fully automated for high throughput of rare cell selection from blood samples. Therefore, the development of microfluidic applications in noninvasive prenatal diagnosis is unlimited.
Topics: Adult; Amniocentesis; Chorionic Villi Sampling; DNA; Female; Humans; Maternal Health; Maternal Serum Screening Tests; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Pregnancy Trimester, Third; Prenatal Diagnosis; RNA, Messenger; Sensitivity and Specificity; Ultrasonography, Prenatal
PubMed: 26384048
DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2015.05.002 -
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Oct 1979
Topics: Amniocentesis; Female; Fetal Diseases; Genetic Diseases, Inborn; Humans; Pregnancy; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 552426
DOI: 10.1177/014107687907201001 -
Amniocentesis to diagnose congenital cytomegalovirus infection following maternal primary infection.American Journal of Obstetrics &... Jul 2022Congenital cytomegalovirus infection following maternal primary cytomegalovirus infection affects approximately 0.4% of newborns in the United States but may be hard to... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Congenital cytomegalovirus infection following maternal primary cytomegalovirus infection affects approximately 0.4% of newborns in the United States but may be hard to diagnose prenatally.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the current sensitivity and specificity of amniocentesis in detecting congenital cytomegalovirus infection.
STUDY DESIGN
Secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial designed to evaluate whether cytomegalovirus hyperimmune globulin reduces congenital cytomegalovirus infection in neonates of individuals diagnosed with primary cytomegalovirus infection before 24 weeks of gestation. At randomization, subjects had no clinical evidence of fetal infection. Eligible subjects were randomized to monthly infusions of cytomegalovirus hyperimmune globulin or placebo until delivery. Although not required by the trial protocol, amniocentesis following randomization was permitted. The fetuses and neonates were tested for the presence of cytomegalovirus at delivery. Comparisons were made between those with and without amniocentesis and between those with cytomegalovirus-positive and negative results, using chi-square or Fisher exact test for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank sum test or t test for continuous variables. A P value of <.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS
From 2012 to 2018, 397 subjects were included, of whom 55 (14%) underwent amniocentesis. Cytomegalovirus results were available for 53 fetuses and neonates. Fourteen amniocenteses were positive (25%). Gestational age at amniocentesis was similar between those with and without cytomegalovirus present, as was the interval between maternal diagnosis and amniocentesis. The prevalence of fetal or neonatal infection was 26% (14/53). The neonates of all 12 subjects with a positive amniocentesis and available results had cytomegalovirus infection confirmed at delivery, as did 2 neonates from the group of 41 subjects with a negative amniocentesis, with a sensitivity of 86% (95% confidence interval, 57-98), specificity of 100% (95% confidence interval, 91-100), positive predictive value of 100% (95% confidence interval, 74-100), and negative predictive value of 95% (95% confidence interval, 83-99). Amniocentesis-positive pregnancies were delivered at an earlier gestational age (37.4 vs 39.6 weeks; P<.001) and had lower birthweights (2583±749 vs 3428±608 g, P=.004) than amniocentesis-negative pregnancies.
CONCLUSION
Amniocentesis results are an accurate predictor of congenital cytomegalovirus infection.
Topics: Amniocentesis; Cytomegalovirus; Cytomegalovirus Infections; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious
PubMed: 35526782
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100641