Amniocentesis and the risk of second trimester fetal loss in twin pregnancies: results from a prospective observational study

DEGUM Recommendations on Diagnostic Puncture in Prenatal Medicine

Diagnostic puncture (amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling, and fetal blood sampling) is an essential part of prenatal diagnostics and the only established and sufficiently scientifically evaluated possibility of diagnosing genetic diseases from pregnancy-specific cells. The number of diagnostic punctures in Germany, as in other countries, has fallen significantly. This is largely due to the introduction of first-trimester screening with further detailed ultrasound examination of the fetus and the analysis of cf-DNA (cell-free DNA) from maternal blood (noninvasive prenatal test - NIPT). On the other hand, knowledge about the incidence and appearance of genetic diseases has increased. The development of modern molecular genetic techniques (microarray and exome analysis) makes a differentiated investigation of these diseases increasingly possible. The requirements for education and counseling regarding these complex correlations have thus increased. The studies performed in recent years make it clear that diagnostic puncture performed in expert centers is associated with a low risk of complications. In particular, the procedure-related miscarriage risk hardly differs from the background risk for spontaneous abortion. In 2013, the Section of Gynecology and Obstetrics of the German Society for Ultrasound in Medicine (DEGUM) published recommendations on diagnostic puncture in prenatal medicine 1. The developments described above and new findings in recent years make it necessary to revise and reformulate these recommendations. The aim of this review is to compile important and current facts regarding prenatal medical puncture (including technique, complications, genetic examinations). It is intended to provide basic, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on diagnostic puncture in prenatal medicine. It replaces the publication from 2013 1.

Amniocentesis in Twin Pregnancies: Risk Factors of Fetal Loss

This study aims to determine if second trimester amniocentesis in twin pregnancies provides a significant independent contribution in the prediction of miscarriage or fetal loss at any stage of pregnancy. This was a retrospective cohort study of women with twin gestations booked for routine prenatal care in four fetal medicine units in Poland in the years 2010-2020. The study population included: (1) twin pregnancies that underwent amniocentesis at 16-20 weeks' gestation; (2) twin pregnancies that did not require any further testing and were followed-up routinely. Univariable and multivariable regression analysis was used to define which maternal and pregnancy characteristics provided a significant independent contribution in the prediction of miscarriage and fetal loss at any stage of pregnancy. In the study period, 2645 twin pregnancies were eligible for analysis. There were 144 cases of miscarriage defined as fetal loss of one or both twins before 24 weeks and 40 cases of intrauterine death of one or both twins after 24 weeks. A total number of 162 twin pregnancies underwent amniocentesis at 16-20 weeks' gestation. The rate of miscarriage before 24 weeks and the rate of fetal loss at any stage of pregnancy in the group that underwent amniocentesis was 10.49% and 13.58%, respectively, compared to 5.11% and 6.52% that did not undergo amniocentesis. Multivariable regression analysis showed that factors providing a significant independent contribution in the prediction of miscarriage and fetal loss at any stage of pregnancy were monochorionicity (MC), large intertwin discordance in crown-rump length (CRL), low Pregnancy Related Plasma Protein (PAPP-A) MoM and nuchal translucency (NT) above 95th centile. Amniocentesis in twin pregnancies does not provide a significant contribution in the prediction of miscarriage or fetal loss at any stage of pregnancy.

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.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prenatal Aneuploidy Screening and Diagnostic Testing from Korean Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine: (2) Invasive Diagnostic Testing for Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities

The Korean Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine proposed the first Korean guideline on prenatal aneuploidy screening and diagnostic testing, in April 2019. The clinical practice guideline (CPG) was developed for Korean women using an adaptation process based on good-quality practice guidelines, previously developed in other countries, on prenatal screening and invasive diagnostic testing for fetal chromosome abnormalities. We reviewed current guidelines and developed a Korean CPG on invasive diagnostic testing for fetal chromosome abnormalities according to the adaptation process. Recommendations for selected 11 key questions are: 1) Considering the increased risk of fetal loss in invasive prenatal diagnostic testing for fetal genetic disorders, it is not recommended for all pregnant women aged over 35 years. 2) Because early amniocentesis performed before 14 weeks of pregnancy increases the risk of fetal loss and malformation, chorionic villus sampling (CVS) is recommended for pregnant women who will undergo invasive prenatal diagnostic testing for fetal genetic disorders in the first trimester of pregnancy. However, CVS before 9 weeks of pregnancy also increases the risk of fetal loss and deformity. Thus, CVS is recommended after 9 weeks of pregnancy. 3) Amniocentesis is recommended to distinguish true fetal mosaicism from confined placental mosaicism. 4) Anti-immunoglobulin should be administered within 72 hours after the invasive diagnostic testing. 5) Since there is a high risk of vertical transmission, an invasive prenatal diagnostic testing is recommended according to the clinician's discretion with consideration of the condition of the pregnant woman. 6) The use of antibiotics is not recommended before or after an invasive diagnostic testing. 7) The chromosomal microarray test as an alternative to the conventional cytogenetic test is not recommended for all pregnant women who will undergo an invasive diagnostic testing. 8) Amniocentesis before 14 weeks of gestation is not recommended because it increases the risk of fetal loss and malformation. 9) CVS before 9 weeks of gestation is not recommended because it increases the risk of fetal loss and malformation. 10) Although the risk of fetal loss associated with invasive prenatal diagnostic testing (amniocentesis and CVS) may vary based on the proficiency of the operator, the risk of fetal loss due to invasive prenatal diagnostic testing is higher in twin pregnancies than in singleton pregnancies. 11) When a monochorionic twin is identified in early pregnancy and the growth and structure of both fetuses are consistent, an invasive prenatal diagnostic testing can be performed on one fetus alone. However, an invasive prenatal diagnostic testing is recommended for each fetus in cases of pregnancy conceived via in vitro fertilization, or in cases in which the growth of both fetuses differs, or in those in which at least one fetus has a structural abnormality. The guidelines were established and approved by the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences. This guideline is revised and presented every 5 years.

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.

Comparison of spontaneous fetal loss rates between women with singleton and twin pregnancies after mid-trimester amniocentesis - A historical cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To assess and compare fetal loss rates before 28 weeks of singleton and twin pregnancies after mid-trimester amniocentesis.

METHOD

This historic cohort study included 13 773 women with singletons and 426 women with twins undergoing mid-trimester amniocentesis from 1/2015 to 3/2017. Pregnancies resulting in termination or selective reduction before 28 weeks were excluded, as well as twin gestations undergoing single-puncture amniocentesis. Fetal loss rates were compared between singleton and twins taking into account maternal characteristics, amniocentesis procedure, and fetal chromosomal abnormalities.

RESULTS

The rates of fetal chromosomal abnormalities were similar in singleton and twin gestations (1.13% vs 0.70%, P = .253). No difference was found in maternal or fetal characteristics, or amniocentesis procedure between the two groups. The fetal loss rate was significantly higher in twin compared with singleton pregnancies (1.91% vs 0.24%, P < .001, RR = 8.25 [95% CI: 4.51 to 15.09]). The fetal loss rate between monochorionic twins and dichorionic twins was similar (1.80% vs 1.78%, P = 1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

Twin pregnancies have higher risk of fetal loss after mid-trimester amniocentesis, which cannot be explained by differences in rates of fetal chromosomal abnormalities, maternal characteristic, or amniocentesis technique.

Comparisons of pregnancy outcomes between twin pregnancies with and without second-trimester amniocentesis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the amniocentesis-related pregnancy loss rate and preterm birth rate among twin pregnancies undergoing amniocentesis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary center. The study group included twin pregnancies undergoing amniocentesis during 16 to 22 weeks of gestation. The control group was those not undergoing amniocentesis. All amniocenteses were performed by the MFM specialists. The main outcomes were the rate of pregnancy loss (before 24 weeks) and preterm birth.

RESULTS

A total of 332 cases in the study group and 1188 controls were analyzed. The percentages of maternal age ≥35 years, high parity, and cases complicated with medical diseases were significantly higher in the study group. The pregnancy loss rate after the procedure tended to be higher, but not significant, in the study group (3.0% vs 2.2% P = .383). Likewise, the rate of preterm birth in the study group was higher, but not significant (70.5% vs 66.0% P = .130). Logistic regression analysis to adjust confounding factors showed no significance of amniocentesis on pregnancy loss and preterm birth.

CONCLUSION

Though amniocentesis in twin pregnancies has theoretical risk of pregnancy loss, it is relatively safe when performed by maternal-fetal medicine specialists. This information is useful for counseling, especially when performed by experienced hands.

Obstetrical outcomes after first-trimester chorionic villus sampling in twin pregnancies: A retrospective case-control study

AIM

Prenatal diagnostic testing by chorionic villus sampling (CVS) is sometimes recommended for women with twin pregnancies. However, few studies have compared the outcomes between twins with CVS and control twins without intervention. This study aimed to compare the obstetrical outcomes of CVS in twin pregnancies and those in non-intervention twin pregnancies.

METHODS

First-trimester transabdominal CVS was performed on dichorionic-diamniotic twins (n = 54; Group 1) between December 2006 and January 2017 at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at our hospital, and the data were retrospectively analyzed. CVS risks were evaluated by comparing obstetrical outcomes with those of a control population of 155 dichorionic-diamniotic twins without intervention (Group 2).

RESULTS

The difference in the overall fetal loss rate (Group 1, 7.4% vs Group 2, 3.9%; P = 0.287) between the two groups was not statistically significant. The miscarriage rate, defined as delivery at <24 gestational weeks, and early preterm delivery, defined as delivery at <34 gestational weeks, were not significant between the groups (miscarriage: Group 1, 5.6% vs Group 2, 3.2%; P = 0.428; early preterm delivery: Group 1, 11.1% vs Group 2, 9.0%; P = 0.788). The mean gestational age at delivery, birth weights and neonatal intensive care unit admission rate were not statistically significant between the groups. Thus, the overall fetal loss rate and obstetrical outcomes of Group 1 were comparable with those of Group 2.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the overall obstetrical outcomes were not significantly different between twins with CVS and control twins with the advantage of enabling early decision-making about selective feticide in twins with CVS.

Obstetrical Outcomes of Amniocentesis or Chorionic Villus Sampling in Dichorionic Twin Pregnancies

BACKGROUND

Under certain situations, women with twin pregnancies may be counseled to undergo invasive prenatal diagnostic testing. Chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis are the two generally performed invasive prenatal diagnostic tests. Studies comparing procedure-related fetal loss between first-trimester chorionic villus sampling and second-trimester amniocentesis in twin pregnancies are limited. This study aimed to evaluate the procedure-related fetal loss and the obstetrical outcomes of these two procedures, chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis in twin pregnancies.

METHODS

The data from dichorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies on which first-trimester chorionic villus sampling (n = 54) or second-trimester amniocentesis (n = 170) was performed between December 2006 and January 2017 in a single center were retrospectively analyzed. The procedure-related fetal loss was classified as loss of one or all fetuses within 4 weeks of procedure, and overall fetal loss was classified as loss of one or all fetuses during the gestation. The groups were compared with respect to the procedure-related and obstetrical outcomes.

RESULTS

The difference in proportion of procedure-related fetal loss rate (1.9% for chorionic villus sampling vs. 1.8% for amniocentesis; P = 1.000) and the overall fetal loss rate (7.4% for chorionic villus sampling vs. 4.7% for amniocentesis; P = 0.489) between the two groups was not significant. The mean gestational ages at delivery were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Both the overall fetal loss rate and the procedure-related fetal loss rate of chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis in dichorionic twin pregnancies had no statistical significance. Both procedures can be safely used individually.

The Prenatal Environment in Twin Studies: A Review on Chorionicity

A literature search was conducted to identify articles examining the association of chorionicity (e.g., whether twins share a single chorion and thus placenta or have separate chorions/placentas) and genetics, psychiatry/behavior, and neurological manifestations in humans twins and higher-order multiples. The main aim was to assess how frequently chorionicity has been examined in relation to heritability estimates, and to assess which phenotypes may be most sensitive to, or affected by, bias in heritability estimates because of chorionicity. Consistent with the theory that some chorionicity effects could lead to overestimation and others to underestimation of heritability, there were instances of each across the many phenotypes reviewed. However, firm conclusions should not be drawn since some of the outcomes were only examined in one or few studies and often sample sizes were small. While the evidence for bias due to chorionicity was mixed or null for many outcomes, results do, however, consistently suggest that heritability estimates are underestimated for measures of birth weight and early growth when chorionicity is not taken into account.

Amniocentesis: A contemporary review

Amniocentesis is an essential tool in obstetrics. Invasive testing remains the only modality for diagnostic genetic testing and the only way to provide comprehensive testing for chromosomal abnormalities. Despite increasing use of cell free fetal deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing, amniocentesis should still be offered to all women who desire more complete and accurate genetic testing. Counseling patients on the limitations of screening tests is of the upmost importance and amniocentesis should continue to be recommended to confirm positive results from cell free fetal DNA testing or in the case of failed cell free fetal DNA test. As cell free fetal DNA screening has not adequately been studied in multiple gestations, its use is not recommended in this population and invasive testing should be offered. Amniocentesis is also very useful in providing additional information in settings other than genetic testing the second and third trimester. If intraamniotic infection is suspected, but the clinical findings are not enough to guide management, amniocentesis can provide testing that can both immediately clarify the picture (interleukin-6, gram stain, glucose levels) and finally confirm the presence of infection (culture). It can also be used to detect the presence of intrauterine viral infections. Additionally, amniocentesis may be used to test for markers of fetal lung maturity. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that amniocentesis for this indication not be used in cases where late preterm delivery is indicated. It may be useful in guiding decision-making, however, when late preterm delivery is indicated, but when exact timing is unclear. Regardless of the indication, amniocentesis appears to be a relatively low risk procedure with minimal risk to the patient. Additional randomized controlled trials are not likely, as they are not feasible to due extremely high number of participants that would be needed to detect a difference in loss rates. Based on current literature, however, the risk of pregnancy loss from second trimester amniocentesis is low in both singleton and twin gestations. We counsel patients that technique has changed since the original studies in the 1970s and feel comfortable quoting a loss rate of 1/500-1/1000 based on contemporary data.