Amniocentesis-related adverse outcomes in diamniotic twins: is there a difference compared to singleton pregnancies?

Kalogiannidis, Ioannis; Petousis, Stamatios; Prapa, S.; Dagklis, Themistoklis; Karkanaki, Artemis; Prapas, Yannis; Prapas, Nikos

doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.11.006

Cited by 12 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the initial literature searches are summarized in Figure 17–30. Only four studies8, 14, 15, 22 had included higher‐order multiple pregnancy (in total, seven sets of triplets and one of quintuplets) and therefore we focused on twin pregnancies only in this study.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six studies7, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23 reported on chorionicity, with total of 11.16% (135/1210) MC twin pairs. However, only two of these studies described pregnancy outcome based on chorionicity.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most investigators did not use any dye7, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25–27, but some did13, 15, 18, 21, 22, 28–30. Millaire et al 21 discontinued use of dye in a later part of the study when the intestinal atresia was recognized as the complication.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the amniocentesis studies15–23, 25, 26, 29, 30 did not report the cross‐contamination or sampling errors. However, Simonazzi et al 7, VanVugt et al 27 and Ko et al 26 did mention that they had no cases of cross‐contamination or sampling error.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Agarwal

Alfirević

2012

Ultrasound in Obstet & Gyne

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Agarwal

Alfirević

2012

Ultrasound in Obstet & Gyne

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[11][12][13][14][15] The risk of pregnancy loss with amniocentesis in twin gestations reported is variable with an estimated risk of 2.6% to 4.7%. 6,11,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] Two separate meta-analyses have identified pregnancy loss rates of 3.1% 24 and 3.5% 25 , respectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pregnancy loss after amniocentesis in monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies: Results from a large population‐based dataset

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To determine the loss rate after amniocentesis in twins. Methods This cohort study evaluated twin pregnancies with serum screening through the California Prenatal Screening Program. The primary outcome was loss of one or both twins at any gestational age. Exclusions were chromosomal/structural abnormalities, selective fetal reduction, terminations, neonatal deaths, ovum donation, and incomplete data. Loss rates were compared between three groups: (a) screen negative and no amniocentesis, (b) screen positive and accepted, or (c) declined amniocentesis. Multivariate logistic analysis generated adjusted odds ratios (aOR). Results Thirty‐six thousand eight hundred twenty‐one twin pregnancies had screening: 2698 (7.3%) were screen positive for aneuploidy or neural tube defects (NTD). Among screen‐positive women, 861 (31.9%) were offered amniocentesis and 274 (31.8%) accepted. The post‐procedure loss rate among screen‐negative women was lower than among screen‐positive women (3.0% vs 7.4%; P < .001; aOR 2.62; 95% CI, 1.16‐2.99). Among screen‐positive women, the loss rate was similar for those who underwent amniocentesis and for those who declined (8.8% vs 6.8%; .32; aOR 1.32; 95% CI, 0.66‐1.91). Conclusion Twins that are screen positive for aneuploidy or NTD have an increased risk of pregnancy loss. Those who are screen positive and undergo amniocentesis do not have an increased loss rate.

show abstract

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

Mascio

Khalil

Rizzo

et al. 2020

Ultrasound in Obstet & Gyne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Amniocentesis-related adverse outcomes in diamniotic twins: is there a difference compared to singleton pregnancies?

Cited by 12 publications

References 26 publications

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

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

Pregnancy loss after amniocentesis in monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies: Results from a large population‐based dataset

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About