Home Microarray findings in pregnancies with oligohydramnios – a retrospective cohort study and literature review
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Microarray findings in pregnancies with oligohydramnios – a retrospective cohort study and literature review

  • Amihood Singer , Idit Maya , Rivka Sukenik-Halevy , Tamar Tenne , Dorit Lev , Shay Ben Shachar and Lena Sagi-Dain ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: December 7, 2019

Abstract

Objective

To explore the risk for abnormal chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) findings in pregnancies with oligohydramnios.

Methods

Data from all CMA analyses performed due to oligohydramnios between 2013 and 2017 were retrospectively obtained from the Israeli Ministry of Health database. The rate of clinically significant (pathogenic and likely pathogenic) findings was compared to a local cohort of pregnancies with normal ultrasound, yielding a 1.4% rate of abnormal CMA results. In addition, a search was conducted through the PubMed database addressing the issue.

Results

Fifty CMA analyses were performed due to oligohydramnios. The 2% risk for clinically significant CMA finding in pregnancies with oligohydramnios did not differ from the control population of 5541 pregnancies with normal ultrasound – relative risk (RR) 1.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2–10.2]. Literature search yielded 394 titles, of which four relevant articles were selected, all using fetal karyotyping.

Conclusion

There is yet insufficient evidence to support invasive prenatal testing in pregnancies with isolated oligohydramnios.


Corresponding author: Lena Sagi-Dain, MD, Genetics Institute, Carmel Medical Center, Affiliated to the Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel; and Genetics Institute, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Carmel Medical Center, 7 Michal St., Haifa, Israel, Tel.: +972-506265842, Fax: +972-48258075

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all Israeli genetic counselors and laboratory workers engaged in the prenatal evaluation of fetal malformations, who made this study possible.

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. Locatelli A, Zagarella A, Toso L, Assi F, Ghidini A, Biffi A. Serial assessment of amniotic fluid index in uncomplicated term pregnancies: prognostic value of amniotic fluid reduction. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2004;15:233–6.10.1080/14767050410001668671Search in Google Scholar

2. Shipp TD, Bromley B, Pauker S, Frigoletto Jr FD, Benacerraf BR. Outcome of singleton pregnancies with severe oligohydramnios in the second and third trimesters. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;7:108–13.10.1046/j.1469-0705.1996.07020108.xSearch in Google Scholar

3. Hackl A, Mehler K, Gottschalk I, Vierzig A, Eydam M, Hauke J, et al. Disorders of fatty acid oxidation and autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease-different clinical entities and comparable perinatal renal abnormalities. Pediatr Nephrol 2017;32:791–800.10.1007/s00467-016-3556-5Search in Google Scholar

4. Al-Hamed MH, Kurdi W, Alsahan N, Ambosaidi Q, Tulbah M, Sayer JA. Renal tubular dysgenesis: antenatal ultrasound scanning and molecular investigations in a Saudi Arabian family. Clin Kidney J 2016;9:807–10.10.1093/ckj/sfw057Search in Google Scholar

5. VanDeVoorde R, Witte D, Kogan J, Goebel J. Pierson syndrome: a novel cause of congenital nephrotic syndrome. Pediatrics 2006;118:e501–5.10.1542/peds.2005-3154Search in Google Scholar

6. De Bernardo G, Giordano M, Di Toro A, Sordino D, De Brasi D. Prenatal diagnosis of Fraser syndrome: a matter of life or death? Ital J Pediatr 2015;41:86.10.1186/s13052-015-0195-6Search in Google Scholar

7. Sirichotiyakul S, Tongsong T, Wanapirak C, Chanprapaph P. Prenatal sonographic diagnosis of Majewski syndrome. J Clin Ultrasound 2002;30:303–7.10.1002/jcu.10066Search in Google Scholar

8. Yancey MK, Hardin EL, Pacheco C, Kuslich CD, Donlon TA. Non-mosaic trisomy 16 in a third-trimester fetus. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87(5 Pt 2):856–60.Search in Google Scholar

9. Sifakis S, Koukoura O, Mantas N, Velissariou V, Koumantakis E. Hydrops fetalis, thickened placenta and other sonographic findings in a low-level trisomy 21 mosaicism: a case report. Fetal Diagn Ther 2008;24:310–2.10.1159/000160218Search in Google Scholar

10. Basgul A, Kavak ZN, Akman I, Gokaslan H, Elcioglu N. Prenatal diagnosis of Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome (4p-) in association with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, cystic hygroma and IUGR. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2006;33:105–6.Search in Google Scholar

11. Froster UG, Horn LC, Holland H, Strenge S, Faber R. Prenatal diagnosis of del(15)(q26.1) and del(18)(q21.3) due to an unbalanced de novo translocation: ultrasound, molecular cytogenetic and autopsy findings. Prenat Diagn 2000;20:992–5.10.1002/1097-0223(200012)20:12<992::AID-PD950>3.0.CO;2-7Search in Google Scholar

12. Lledo B, Ortiz JA, Morales R, Manchon I, Galan F, Bernabeu A, et al. Characterization of a balanced complex chromosomal rearrangement carrier ascertained through a fetus with dup15q26.3 and del5p15.33: case report. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2013;16:215–7.10.3109/14647273.2013.814810Search in Google Scholar

13. Chen CP, Chern SR, Lee CC, Town DD. Isochromosome 18q in a fetus with congenital megacystis, intra-uterine growth retardation and cloacal dysgenesis sequence. Prenatl Diagn 1998;18:1068–74.10.1002/(SICI)1097-0223(1998100)18:10<1068::AID-PD384>3.0.CO;2-ASearch in Google Scholar

14. South ST, Lee C, Lamb AN, Higgins AW, Kearney HM. ACMG Standards and Guidelines for constitutional cytogenomic microarray analysis, including postnatal and prenatal applications: revision 2013. Genet Med 2013;15:901–9.10.1038/gim.2013.129Search in Google Scholar

15. Kearney HM, Thorland EC, Brown KK, Quintero-Rivera F, South ST, Working Group of the American College of Medical Genetics Laboratory Quality Assurance C. American College of Medical Genetics standards and guidelines for interpretation and reporting of postnatal constitutional copy number variants. Genet Med 2011;13:680–5.10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182217a3aSearch in Google Scholar

16. Sagi-Dain L, Cohen Vig L, Kahana S, Yacobson S, Tenne T, Agmon-Fishman I, et al. Chromosomal microarray vs. NIPS: analysis of 5541 low-risk pregnancies. Genet Med 2019;21:2462–7.10.1038/s41436-019-0550-xSearch in Google Scholar

17. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010;25:603–5.10.1007/s10654-010-9491-zSearch in Google Scholar

18. Dombrowski MP, Berry SM, Isada NB, Jones TB, Evans MI. Abnormal second-trimester ultrasounds: an indication for karyotype. Fetal Diagn Ther 1993;8:10–4.10.1159/000263741Search in Google Scholar

19. Stoll C, Alembik Y, Roth MP, Dott B. Study of 224 cases of oligohydramnios and congenital malformations in a series of 225,669 consecutive births. Community Genet 1998;1:71–7.10.1159/000016140Search in Google Scholar

20. Scott RJ, Goodburn SF. Potter’s syndrome in the second trimester – prenatal screening and pathological findings in 60 cases of oligohydramnios sequence. Prenat Diagn 1995;15:519–25.10.1002/pd.1970150604Search in Google Scholar

21. Shipp TD, Benacerraf BR. The significance of prenatally identified isolated clubfoot: is amniocentesis indicated? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:600–2.10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70445-4Search in Google Scholar

22. Sagi-Dain L, Maya I, Reches A, Frumkin A, Grinshpun-Cohen J, Segel R, et al. Chromosomal microarray analysis results from pregnancies with various ultrasonographic anomalies. Obstet Gynecol 2018;132:1368–75.10.1097/AOG.0000000000002975Search in Google Scholar

23. D’Angelo D, Lebon S, Chen Q, Martin-Brevet S, Snyder LG, Hippolyte L, et al. Defining the effect of the 16p11.2 duplication on cognition, behavior, and medical comorbidities. JAMA Psychiatry 2016;73:20–30.10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2123Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

24. Chang H, Li L, Li M, Xiao X. Rare and common variants at 16p11.2 are associated with schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2017;184:105–8.10.1016/j.schres.2016.11.031Search in Google Scholar PubMed

25. Maillard AM, Ruef A, Pizzagalli F, Migliavacca E, Hippolyte L, Adaszewski S, et al. The 16p11.2 locus modulates brain structures common to autism, schizophrenia and obesity. Mol Psychiatry 2015;20:140–7.10.1038/mp.2014.145Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

26. Steinman KJ, Spence SJ, Ramocki MB, Proud MB, Kessler SK, Marco EJ, et al. 16p11.2 deletion and duplication: characterizing neurologic phenotypes in a large clinically ascertained cohort. Am J Med Genet A 2016;170:2943–55.10.1002/ajmg.a.37820Search in Google Scholar PubMed

27. Maya I, Sharony R, Yacobson S, Kahana S, Yeshaya J, Tenne T, et al. When genotype is not predictive of phenotype: implications for genetic counseling based on 21,594 chromosomal microarray analysis examinations. Genet Med 2018;20:128–31.10.1038/gim.2017.89Search in Google Scholar PubMed

28. Niarchou M, Chawner S, Doherty JL, Maillard AM, Jacquemont S, Chung WK, et al. Psychiatric disorders in children with 16p11.2 deletion and duplication. Transl Psychiatry 2019;9:8.10.1038/s41398-018-0339-8Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

29. Gillentine MA, Lupo PJ, Stankiewicz P, Schaaf CP. An estimation of the prevalence of genomic disorders using chromosomal microarray data. J Hum Genet 2018;63:795–801.10.1038/s10038-018-0451-xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central


Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2019-0228).


Received: 2019-06-23
Accepted: 2019-11-04
Published Online: 2019-12-07
Published in Print: 2019-12-18

©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. 10.1515/jpm-2020-frontmatter1
  2. Review
  3. Delivery room handling of the newborn
  4. Original Articles – Obstetrics
  5. Examining the validity of a predictive model for vaginal birth after cesarean
  6. Correlation between endometrial thickness and perinatal outcome for pregnancies achieved through assisted reproduction technology
  7. Significance of the routine first-trimester antenatal screening program for aneuploidy in the assessment of the risk of placenta accreta spectrum disorders
  8. A decade’s experience in primipara, term, singleton, vertex parturients with a sustained low rate of CD
  9. Survey of alongside midwifery-led care in North Rhine-Westfalia, Germany
  10. Correlation between aneuploidy pregnancy and the concentration of various hormones and vascular endothelial factor in follicular fluid as well as the number of acquired oocytes
  11. Bacteriuria in pregnancy varies with the ambiance: a retrospective observational study at a tertiary hospital in Doha, Qatar
  12. Microarray findings in pregnancies with oligohydramnios – a retrospective cohort study and literature review
  13. Lifestyle characteristics of parental electronic cigarette and marijuana users: healthy or not?
  14. Influence of maternal HIV infection on fetal thymus size
  15. Original Articles – Fetus
  16. Clinical outcome of prenatally suspected cardiac rhabdomyomas of the fetus
  17. Original Articles – Newborns
  18. Prolonged ventilation and postnatal growth of preterm infants
  19. Letter to the Editor
  20. Neonatal sepsis associated with Lactobacillus supplementation
Downloaded on 22.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jpm-2019-0228/html
Scroll to top button