Impact of prenatal testing on maternal-fetal bonding: Chorionic villus sampling versus amniocentesis

1991 ◽  
Vol 165 (4) ◽  
pp. 1122-1125 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Caccia ◽  
J.M. Johnson ◽  
G.E. Robinson ◽  
T. Barna
Keyword(s):  
Chorionic Villus ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Chorionic Villus Sampling

Invasive Prenatal Diagnosis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly Zayhowski
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Counseling ◽  
Prenatal Diagnosis ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Prenatal Care ◽  
Chorionic Villus ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Chorionic Villus Sampling ◽  
Genetic Tests ◽  
Genetic Technologies ◽  
Invasive Techniques

Despite recent advances in genetic technologies that are making invasive prenatal diagnosis less common, amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) remain an integral part of prenatal care. A multitude of tests, including a variety of genetic tests, can be performed using samples collected from either procedure. Although invasive testing has limitations, many genetic conditions can only be diagnosed through invasive techniques during pregnancy. Invasive testing continues to assist patients and providers in making informed decisions regarding the care of pregnancies. This review details amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling with a focus on genetic testing, describing why the tests are performed, the way in which they are performed, and the associated limitations and complications of the procedures.  This review 5 figures, 3 tables, and 26 references. Keywords: prenatal diagnosis, amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling, genetic testing, genetic counseling, invasive prenatal testing, pregnancy, aneuploidy

Uptake of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing in Chinese Women following Positive Down Syndrome Screening

2014 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.F. Poon ◽  
W.C. Tse ◽  
K.O. Kou ◽  
K.Y. Leung
Keyword(s):  
Down Syndrome ◽  
Chinese Women ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Chorionic Villus ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
First Trimester ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Chorionic Villus Sampling ◽  
Noninvasive Prenatal Testing ◽  
Down Syndrome Screening

Objectives: To investigate how the introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) influenced women's testing choices following a positive Down syndrome screening. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted to compare differences in the uptake rates of invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD) or no testing in one public hospital 1 year before (pre-NIPT) and 1 and 2 years after the introduction of NIPT in private in August 2011 using descriptive analysis and a χ2 test. Conventional screening was funded publicly, but NIPT was not. Multivariable binary logistic regression was used to determine factors affecting choices. Results: In pre-NIPT and in years 1 and 2 after the introduction of NIPT, 306, 362 and 401 women who screened positive were seen, respectively. In year 1 and year 2, 12.6 and 26.7% of them underwent NIPT while IPD was decreased by 16.3 and 25.6%, respectively (p < 0.001). Both chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis decreased in year 1, but only the former in year 2. However, the rate of declining further testing was similar before and after NIPT (p = 0.213). In multivariable analysis, first trimester screening, nulliparity and working women were significant predictors of accepting NIPT, while only nulliparity was a predictor of declining IPD (OR = 0.61). Conclusions: Introduction of NIPT resulted in a significant decrease in IPD for 2 consecutive years.

Trends in Invasive Prenatal Diagnosis: Effect of Sequential Screening and Noninvasive Prenatal Testing

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 292-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adeeb Khalifeh ◽  
Stuart Weiner ◽  
Vincenzo Berghella ◽  
Alan Donnenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Prenatal Diagnosis ◽  
Chorionic Villus ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Chorionic Villus Sampling ◽  
Invasive Procedures ◽  
Noninvasive Prenatal Testing ◽  
Sequential Screening ◽  
Period 2 ◽  
Prenatal Diagnostic ◽  
The Impact

Objective: To examine trends in the incidence and method of invasive prenatal diagnosis due to the impact of sequential screening and noninvasive prenatal testing. Methods: This is a retrospective review of all pregnancies that have undergone invasive prenatal diagnostic testing between June 2002 and June 2014, divided in 3 periods: period 1 from June 2002 to October 2006, period 2 from November 2006 to December 2011, and period 3 from January 2012 to June 2014. The main outcome measures were trends in the incidence and method of each procedure. Results: There were 88,135 deliveries and 6,080 invasive procedures during the study period. In period 1, 2,755 (8.8%) procedures were carried out, in period 2 2,820 (7.3%), and in period 3 505 (2.5%; p < 0.01). In period 1, there were 1,990 (6.3%) cases of amniocentesis, 1,646 (4.3%) in period 2, and 254 (1.2%) in period 3 (p < 0.01). In addition, in 765 (2.5%) cases, chorionic villus sampling (CVS) was performed in period 1, compared to 1,174 (3.0%) cases in period 2 and 251 (1.3%) cases in period 3 (p < 0.01). Advanced maternal age as the sole indication for invasive procedures decreased significantly over time, while the indication of abnormal serum screening and abnormal ultrasound findings increased (p < 0.01). Conclusion: There was a significant decline in the incidence of invasive prenatal testing over the 12 years of the study. The decrease in amniocentesis was more marked than that in CVS.

CHROMOSOMAL MICROARRAYS: THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF INTRODUCTION INTO PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 307-322
Author(s):  
LISA G SHAFFER ◽  
DAVID CHITAYAT
Keyword(s):  
Down Syndrome ◽  
Chromosome Abnormality ◽  
Genetic Disorders ◽  
Chorionic Villus ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Chromosome Analysis ◽  
Chorionic Villus Sampling ◽  
Ultrasound Findings ◽  
Medical Indications ◽  
Chromosomal Microarrays

Invasive prenatal testing, amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling, has been used for over four decades to identify fetal genetic disorders. The most common test after obtaining fetal tissues is chromosome analysis, performed for a variety of medical indications including abnormal ultrasound findings, advanced maternal age and an abnormal screen for Down syndrome. About 2% of pregnancies in women over the age of 35 will show a chromosome abnormality, with trisomy 21 being the most common. In addition to Down syndrome, the most commonly observed trisomies are those of chromosomes 13 and 18. Numerical abnormalities of the sex chromosomes are also relatively common, as well as triploidy.

Antenatal screening

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 528-533
Author(s):  
Mah Jabeen
Keyword(s):  
Chorionic Villus ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Chorionic Villus Sampling ◽  
Antenatal Screening ◽  
Chromosomal Disorders ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Clinical Conditions

Antenatal screening should be offered to all pregnant patients in the UK. Patients require information to understand and make decisions about antenatal screening tests. Women are choosing to have children later in their lives, which can lead to a greater risk of antenatal complications. Effective screening tests (such as non-invasive prenatal testing) have been developed with a reduced risk of miscarriage compared with invasive tests (chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis) for genetic conditions. Information about the purpose of testing should be given to patients in a manner that can be easily understood and allows the advantages and disadvantages of tests to be considered. GPs take a holistic approach that considers patients’ medical, psychological and social backgrounds. This is invaluable when working collaboratively with other health professionals and has become an essential part of antenatal care. This article gives an overview of antenatal screening for GPs and considers relevant haematological conditions, chromosomal disorders, structural anomalies, maternal clinical conditions and infections.

scholarly journals Noninvasive prenatal testing as compared to chorionic villus sampling is more sensitive for the detection of confined placental mosaicism involving the cytotrophoblast

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 1338-1342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Van Opstal ◽  
Geerke M. Eggenhuizen ◽  
Marieke Joosten ◽  
Karin Diderich ◽  
Lutgarde Govaerts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chorionic Villus ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Chorionic Villus Sampling ◽  
Noninvasive Prenatal Testing ◽  
Placental Mosaicism

Procedure related risk of premature delivery and fetal growth reduction following amniocentesis, transcervical and transabdominal chorionic villus sampling: a retrospective study

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (8) ◽  
pp. 811-816
Author(s):  
Julia Zimmer ◽  
Ralf Schmitz ◽  
Mareike Möllers ◽  
Kerstin Hammer ◽  
Maria K. Falkenberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fetal Growth ◽  
Fetal Growth Restriction ◽  
Chorionic Villus ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Invasive Procedure ◽  
Normal Karyotype ◽  
Growth Restriction ◽  
Premature Delivery ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Chorionic Villus Sampling

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to compare transabdominal and transcervical chorionic villus sampling (CVS) as well as amniocentesis (AC) with respect to their rates of premature delivery and fetal growth restriction. Methods We retrospectively evaluated the mentioned procedures of invasive prenatal testing performed in a single center between 2001 and 2016. Seven hundred and ninety-nine cases of AC and 719 cases of CVS were included, of which 400 were performed transvaginally. Only singleton pregnancies with a normal karyotype and delivery after 24 + 0 weeks of gestation were included. Fetal growth restriction was defined as birth weight below the 10th percentile. Premature delivery was defined as delivery before 37 + 0 weeks of gestation. Data were compared to a control group without an invasive procedure. Results The frequency of premature delivery was 8.5% after transabdominal CVS, 6.3% after transcervical CVS and 10.5% after AC as compared to 10.8% in the control group. The frequency of fetal growth restriction was 8.2% after transabdominal CVS 6.8% after transcervical CVS and 8.4% after AC as compared to 9.7% in the control group. Conclusion Our study supports that the three different methods of invasive prenatal testing do not lead to a higher risk of either premature delivery or fetal growth restriction when compared to controls. We found no difference in risk profile among the three techniques.

Fetal loss following invasive prenatal testing: a comparison of transabdominal chorionic villus sampling, transcervical chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Svenja Laura Niederstrasser ◽  
Kerstin Hammer ◽  
Mareike Möllers ◽  
Maria Karina Falkenberg ◽  
Rene Schmidt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pregnancy Outcome ◽  
Chorionic Villus ◽  
Fetal Loss ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Chorionic Villus Sampling ◽  
Singleton Pregnancies ◽  
Loss Rates

AbstractObjective:The aim of this study was to compare transabdominal chorionic villus sampling, transcervical chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis with respect to their total fetal loss rates.Methods:We retrospectively evaluated procedures of invasive prenatal testing performed during a 14-year period (2001–2014) including 936 amniocentesis procedures and 1051 chorionic villus samplings, of which 405 cases were executed transabdominally and 646 transcervically. Only singleton pregnancies before 24 weeks and 0 days of gestation where the pregnancy outcome was known were included. Fetal loss was defined as an abortion occurring either before 24 weeks and 0 days of gestation or <2 weeks after the procedure.Results:The total fetal loss rates were determined to be 1.73% for transabdominal chorionic villus sampling, 2.01% for transcervical chorionic villus sampling and 1.18% for amniocentesis. No statistically noticeable differences between the total fetal loss rates of all three procedures were found (P=0.399).Conclusion:Our study has shown that chorionic villus sampling (either transabdominal or transcervical) and amniocentesis are equal methods for invasive prenatal testing with respect to their abortion risk.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document