Amniocentesis in twin pregnancies

Pregnancy Loss After Amniocentesis with Double-Needle Insertions in Twin Pregnancies

The aim of this study was to determine the pregnancy loss rate of amniocentesis with double-needle insertions in twin pregnancies. This was a retrospective study of twin pregnancies who underwent amniocentesis with double-needle insertion between 2010 and 2019 at a single center. The pregnancy loss rates were recorded as single or double fetal loss before 24 weeks’ gestation and within 4 weeks after the procedure. Risk factors for pregnancy loss after amniocentesis were also assessed. A total of 678 twin pregnancies with amniocentesis were finally included. The pregnancy loss rates before 24 weeks’ gestation and within 4 weeks after the procedure were 0.9% and 1.9%, respectively. Only one fetal loss was presumed to be a direct result of the procedure. All other cases were complicated by structural or chromosomal anomalies. Twin pregnancies with abnormal ultrasound findings had a significantly higher rate of pregnancy loss with a relative risk of 4.81 (95% CI [1.03, 22.2]). Our study showed a low pregnancy loss rate after amniocentesis in twin pregnancies with double-needle insertions technique of sampling, which can help decision making in prenatal screening and diagnosis for twin pregnancies.

Risk of fetal loss following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling in twin pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the rate of fetal loss following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) in twin pregnancy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies reporting procedure-related complications following amniocentesis or CVS in twin pregnancy. The primary outcome was the rate of procedure-related fetal loss. The secondary outcomes were fetal loss occurring before 24 weeks of gestation and fetal loss occurring within 4 weeks after the procedure. Head-to-head meta-analyses were used to compare directly each outcome, between women undergoing amniocentesis and those not undergoing amniocentesis and between women undergoing CVS and those not undergoing CVS, and to compute pooled risk differences (RD) between women exposed and those not exposed to each invasive procedure. Additionally, meta-analyses of proportions were used to estimate the pooled rates of each of the three outcomes in women undergoing amniocentesis or CVS and in controls.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (3419 twin pregnancies undergoing and 2517 not undergoing an invasive procedure) were included. Head-to-head meta-analyses comparing directly twin pregnancies undergoing and those not undergoing amniocentesis showed a higher risk for overall fetal loss in those undergoing amniocentesis (odds ratio (OR), 1.46 (P = 0.04); RD, 0.013 (P = 0.04)), while there was no difference in the risk of either fetal loss before 24 weeks of gestation (OR, 1.59 (P = 0.06); RD, 0.010 (P = 0.11)) or fetal loss within 4 weeks after the procedure (OR, 1.38 (P = 0.3); RD, 0.003 (P = 0.8)). Overall, the pooled rate of fetal loss was 2.4% (95% CI, 1.4-3.6%) in twin pregnancies undergoing amniocentesis compared with 2.4% (95% CI, 0.9-4.6%) in those not undergoing amniocentesis. Head-to-head meta-analyses directly comparing twin pregnancies undergoing and those not undergoing CVS showed no significant difference in either overall fetal loss (OR, 1.61 (P = 0.5); RD, 0.003 (P = 0.8)) or fetal loss before 24 weeks of gestation (OR, 1.61 (P = 0.5); RD, 0.003 (P = 0.8)). Overall, the pooled rate of fetal loss was 2.0% (95% CI, 0.0-6.5%) in twin pregnancies undergoing CVS compared with 1.8% (95% CI, 0.3-4.2%) in those not undergoing CVS.

CONCLUSION

The risk of fetal loss following amniocentesis and CVS in twins is lower than reported previously and the rate of fetal loss before 24 weeks of gestation, or within 4 weeks after the procedure, did not differ from the background risk in twin pregnancy not undergoing invasive prenatal testing. These data can guide prenatal counseling for twin pregnancies undergoing invasive procedures. © 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Pregnancy loss after chorionic villus sampling and genetic amniocentesis in twin pregnancies: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To review the available evidence regarding pregnancy loss following first-trimester chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and mid-trimester genetic amniocentesis in twins.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE database from January 1990 to May 2011 for randomized and cohort studies reporting on the risk of pregnancy loss after first-trimester CVS performed between 9 and 14 weeks and after genetic amniocentesis performed between 14 and 22 weeks. Where appropriate, we calculated pooled proportions and relative risks with 95% CI.

RESULTS

No randomized studies were found. For CVS, nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The overall pregnancy-loss rate was 3.84% (95% CI, 2.48-5.47; n = 4). The rate of pregnancy loss before 20 weeks was 2.75% (95% CI, 1.28-4.75; n = 3) and before 28 weeks was 3.44% (95% CI, 1.67-5.81; n = 3). For amniocentesis, the overall pregnancy-loss rate was 3.07% (95% CI, 1.83-4.61; n = 4). The rate of pregnancy loss before 20 weeks was 2.25% (95% CI, 1.23-3.57; n = 2), before 24 weeks was 2.54% (95% CI, 1.43-3.96; n = 9) and before 28 weeks was 1.70% (95% CI, 0.37-3.97; n = 5). Pooled data from four case-control studies showed a higher risk (2.59% vs. 1.53%) of pregnancy loss before 24 weeks following amniocentesis (relative risk = 1.81; 95% CI, 1.02-3.19). There were no statistically significant differences in reported pregnancy loss between transabdominal and transcervical approaches, use of a single-needle system vs. a double-needle system and single uterine entry vs. double uterine entry in the CVS group. Similarly, in the amniocentesis group, there was no statistically significant difference in fetal loss between the single uterine entry vs. the double uterine entry.

CONCLUSION

In the absence of randomized studies, it is not possible to estimate accurately the excess risk following invasive procedures in twins. Currently available data show similar overall pregnancy-loss rates for both amniocentesis and CVS with the excess risk of around 1% above the background risk.

Amniocentesis in twin pregnancies: a systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

Using published data, we sought to determine the amniocentesis-related loss rate in twin gestations.

METHODS

We searched the PUBMED database using keywords "amniocentesis", "twin" and "twins" to identify articles evaluating genetic amniocentesis in twin gestations published from January 1970 to December 2010. Random effects models were used to pool procedure-related loss rates from included studies.

RESULTS

The definition of "loss" varied across the 17 studies identified (Table 1). The pooled procedure-related loss rate at < 24 weeks was 3.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6-4.7) (Figure 2). Pooled loss rates at < 28 weeks (Figure 4) and to term (Figure 5) could not be calculated due to unacceptable heterogeneity of available data. Seven studies included a control (no amniocentesis) group and reported a pooled odds ratio for total pregnancy loss among cases of 1.8 (95% CI 1.2-2.7) (Figure 3). Only 1 study reported procedure-related loss rates by chorionicity (7.7% among monochorionics vs 1.4% among controls; p 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Analysis of published data demonstrated a pooled amniocentesis-related loss rate of 3.5% in twin gestations < 24 weeks. Pooled loss rates within other post-amniocentesis intervals or other gestational age windows and the impact of chorionicity on procedure-related loss rates cannot be determined from published data.