The decline of amniocentesis and the increase of chorionic villus sampling in modern perinatal medicine
-
Giovanni Monni
,
Valentina Corda
Abstract
Objective
The aims of this study were to determine the rate of change by type of diagnosis by transabdominal chorionic villus sampling (TA-CVS) vs. amniocentesis for aneuploidy and to describe a successful and intensive international training program for TA-CVS in ongoing pregnancies.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all deliveries from 2010 to 2018 in Sardinia. All invasive diagnostic procedures are conducted at a single regional perinatal referral center. Descriptive statistics were used to compare data across groups, and inter-correlations between variables were investigated by Pearson’s correlation coefficient. We subsequently describe the international trainee experiences in TA-CVS over a 35-year period.
Results
A total of 101,025 deliveries occurred over 9 years. The number of deliveries (13,413–9143, P < 0.0001) and total invasive diagnostic procedures (1506–858 per year, P = 0.019) declined over this period. The percentage of deliveries undergoing invasive diagnostic procedures remained steady (mean: 12.2%). In 2010, TA-CVS made up 32.3% of all invasive diagnostic procedures, while amniocentesis made up 67.7%. By 2018, TA-CVS made up 61.3% of the invasive diagnostic procedures, and amniocentesis, only 38.7%. The rate of TA-CVS increased over 9 years, while the rate of amniocentesis declined. A total of 236 trainees from 39 different countries and 5 different continents rotated through this site. The average length of stay was 2.4 weeks.
Conclusion
We demonstrate an increasing prevalence of TA-CVS vs. amniocentesis in the current era of prenatal testing and underscore the importance of continuing to train specialists skilled in TA-CVS. Our global operative experience is feasible and sustainable and will have a lasting impact on physicians conducting invasive fetal procedures.
Acknowledgments
The authors of this manuscript would like to thank Fondazione di Sardegna for their encouraging trust and Boyana Petrova Tsikalova, MA, for editing assistance.
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Conflict of interest: None declared.
References
1. Monni G, Cau G, Usai V, Perra G, Lai R, Ibba G, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for beta-thalassaemia: the Sardinian experience. Prenat Diagn 2004;24:949–54.10.1002/pd.1051Search in Google Scholar
2. Traeger-Synodinos J. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol 2017;39:74–88.10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2016.10.010Search in Google Scholar
3. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2018;109:429–36.10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.002Search in Google Scholar
4. Carlson LM, Vora NL. Prenatal diagnosis: screening and diagnostic tools. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2017;44:245–56.10.1016/j.ogc.2017.02.004Search in Google Scholar
5. Norton ME, Kuller JA, Dugoff L. Perinatal genetics. 1st ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier; 2019.Search in Google Scholar
6. Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, Ballif BC, Eng CM, Zachary JM, et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2012;367:2175–84.10.1056/NEJMoa1203382Search in Google Scholar
7. Van den Veyver IB. Recent advances in prenatal genetic screening and testing. F1000Res 2016;5:2591. eCollection 2016.10.12688/f1000research.9215.1Search in Google Scholar
8. Snijders RJ, Noble P, Sebire N, Souka A, Nicolaides KH. UK multicentre project on assessment of risk of trisomy 21 by maternal age and fetal nuchal-translucency thickness at 10-14 weeks of gestation. Fetal Medicine Foundation First Trimester Screening Group. Lancet 1998;352:343–6.10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11280-6Search in Google Scholar
9. Monni G, Zoppi MA, Ibba RM, Floris M. Fetal nuchal translucency test for Down’s syndrome. Lancet 1997;350:1631–32.10.1016/S0140-6736(05)64050-0Search in Google Scholar
10. Nikolaides KH. A model for a new pyramid of prenatal care based on the 11–13 weeks’ assessment. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:3–6.10.1002/pd.2685Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Spencer K, Souter V, Tul N, Snijders R, Nicolaides KH. A screening program for trisomy 21 at 10–14 weeks using fetal nuchal translucency, maternal serum free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;13:231–7.10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.13040231.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Nicolaides KH, Chervenak FA, McCullough LB, Avgidou K, Papageorghiou A. Evidence-based obstetric ethics and informed decision-making by pregnant women about invasive diagnosis after first-trimester assessment of risk for trisomy 21. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:322–6.10.1016/j.ajog.2005.02.134Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, Laurent LC, Ranzini AC, Brar H, et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1589–97.10.1056/NEJMoa1407349Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Wulff CB, Gerds TA, Rode L, Ekelund CK, Petersen OB, Tabor A, Danish Fetal Medicine Study Group. The risk of fetal loss associated with invasive testing following combined first trimester risk screening for Down syndrome – a national cohort of 147 987 singleton pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016;47:38–44.10.1002/uog.15820Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Johnson K, Kelley J, Saxton V, Walker SP, Hui L. Declining invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures: a comparison of tertiary hospital and national data from 2012 to 2015. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2017;57:152–6.10.1111/ajo.12590Search in Google Scholar PubMed
16. Monni G, Zoppi MA. Improved first-trimester aneuploidy risk assessment: an evolving challenge of training in invasive prenatal diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;41:486–8.10.1002/uog.12461Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Ghi T, Sotiriadis A, Calda P, Da Silva Costa F, Raine-Fenning N, Alfirevic Z, et al. International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG). ISUOG practice guidelines: invasive procedures for prenatal diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016;48:256–68.10.1002/uog.15945Search in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Bromley B, Shipp TD, Lyons J, Navathe RS, Groszmann Y, Benacerraf BR. Detection of fetal structural anomalies in a basic first-trimester screening program for aneuploidy. J Ultrasound Med 2014;33:1737–45.10.7863/ultra.33.10.1737Search in Google Scholar PubMed
19. Rao RR, Valderramos SG, Silverman NS, Han CS, Platt LD. The value of the first trimester ultrasound in the era of cell free DNA screening. Prenat Diagn 2016;36:1192–8.10.1002/pd.4955Search in Google Scholar PubMed
20. Alfirevic Z, Bilardo CM, Salomon LJ, Tabor A. Women who choose cell-free DNA testing should not be denied first-trimester anatomy scan. Br J Obstet Gynecol 2017;124:1159–61.10.1111/1471-0528.14604Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Akolekar R, Beta J, Picciarelli G, Ogilvie C, D’Antonio F. Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;45:16–26.10.1097/OGX.0000000000000214Search in Google Scholar
22. Salomon LJ, Sotiriadis A, Wulff CB, Odibo A, Akolekar R. Risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling: systematic review of literature and updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019;54:442–51.10.1002/uog.20353Search in Google Scholar
23. Monni G, Zoppi MA, Axiana C, Ibba RM. Changes in the approach for invasive prenatal diagnosis in 35,127 cases at a single center from 1977 to 2004. Fetal Diagn Ther 2006;21:348–54.10.1159/000092464Search in Google Scholar
24. Cao A, Rosatelli MC, Monni G, Galanello R. Screening for thalassemia: a model of success. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2002;29:305–28.10.1016/S0889-8545(01)00006-7Search in Google Scholar
25. Monni G, Ibba RM, Zoppi MA. Prenatal genetic diagnosis through chorionic villus sampling. In: Milunsky A, Milunsky JM, editors. Genetic disorders and the fetus. 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p. 160–93.10.1002/9781444314342.ch5Search in Google Scholar
26. Monni G, Pagani G, Stagnati V, Iuculano A, Ibba RM. How to perform transabdominal chorionic villus sampling: a practical guideline. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2015;15:1–7.10.3109/14767058.2015.1051959Search in Google Scholar PubMed
27. Monni G, Iuculano A. Re: ISUOG Practice Guidelines: invasive procedures for prenatal diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017;49:414–5.10.1002/uog.17375Search in Google Scholar PubMed
28. Lawin O’Brien A, Dall’Asta A, Tapon D, Mann K, Ahn JW, Ellis R, et al. Gestation related karyotype, QF-PCR and CGH-array failure rates in diagnostic amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn 2016;36:708–13.10.1002/pd.4843Search in Google Scholar PubMed
29. Hay SB, Sahoo T, Travis MK, Hovanes K, Dzidic N, Doherty C, et al. ACOG and SMFM guidelines for prenatal diagnosis: is karyotyping really sufficient? Prenat Diagn 2018;38: 184–9.10.1002/pd.5212Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
30. Hashiloni-Dolev Y, Nov-Klaiman T, Raz A. Pandora’s pregnancy: NIPT, CMA, and genome sequencing – a new era for prenatal genetic testing. Prenat Diagn 2019;39:859–65.10.1002/pd.5495Search in Google Scholar PubMed
31. Monni G, Peddes C, Iuculano A, Ibba RM. From prenatal to preimplantation genetic diagnosis of β-thalassemia. Prevention model in 8748 cases: 40 years of single center experience. J Clin Med 2018;7:35.10.3390/jcm7020035Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
32. Minear MA, Alessi S, Allyse M, Michie M, Chandrasekharan S. Noninvasive prenatal genetic testing: current and emerging ethical, legal, and social issues. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2015;16:369–98.10.1146/annurev-genom-090314-050000Search in Google Scholar
33. Griffin B, Edwards S, Chitty LS, Lewis C. Clinical, social and ethical issues associated with non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol 2018;39:11–18.10.1080/0167482X.2017.1286643Search in Google Scholar
34. Cao A, Cossu P, Monni G, Rosatelli MC. Chorionic villus sampling and acceptance rate of prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 1987;7:531–3.10.1002/pd.1970070710Search in Google Scholar
35. Monni G, Ibba RM, Lai R, Cau G, Mura S, Olla G, et al. Early transabdominal chorionic villus sampling in couples at high genetic risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;168:170–3.10.1016/S0002-9378(12)90908-4Search in Google Scholar
36. Zoppi MA, Ibba RM, Putzolu M, Floris M, Monni G. Assessment of risk for chromosomal abnormalities at 10–14 weeks of gestation by nuchal translucency and maternal age in 5210 fetuses at a single center. Fetal Diagn Ther 2000;15:170–3.10.1159/000020999Search in Google Scholar PubMed
37. Zoppi MA, Ibba RM, Floris M, Monni G. Fetal nuchal translucency screening in 12.495 pregnancies in Sardinia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;18:649–51.10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00583.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
38. Monni G, Zoppi MA, Iuculano A, Piras A, Arras M. Invasive or non-invasive prenatal genetic diagnosis? J Perinat Med 2014;42:545–8.10.1515/jpm-2014-0135Search in Google Scholar PubMed
39. Gekas J, Langlois S, Ravitsky V, Audibert F, van den Berg DG, Haidar H, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal chromosome abnormalities: review of clinical and ethical issues. Appl Clin Genet 2016;9:15–26.10.2147/TACG.S85361Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
40. Kane SC, Reidy KL, Norris F, Nisbet DL, Kornman LH, Palma-Dias R. Chorionic villus sampling in the cell-free DNA aneuploidy screening era: careful selection criteria can maximise the clinical utility of screening and invasive testing. Prenat Diagn 2017;37:399–408.10.1002/pd.5026Search in Google Scholar PubMed
41. Norton ME, Biggio JR, Kuller JA, Blackwell SC, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). The role of ultrasound in women who undergo cell-free DNA screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216:B2–B7.10.1016/j.ajog.2017.01.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed
42. Monni G, Pagani G, Illescas T, Stagnati V, Iuculano A, Ibba RM. Training for transabdominal villous sampling is feasible and safe. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;213:248–50.10.1016/j.ajog.2015.04.019Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Women and children first: the need for ringfencing during the COVID-19 pandemic
- Review
- The decline of amniocentesis and the increase of chorionic villus sampling in modern perinatal medicine
- Original Articles – Obstetrics
- Fetal renal artery impedance in pregnancies affected by preeclampsia
- The effect of maternal position on fetal middle cerebral artery Doppler indices and its association with adverse perinatal outcomes: a pilot study
- Interpregnancy interval and the risk for recurrence of placental mediated pregnancy complications
- Short- and long-term outcomes of preterm spontaneous twin anemia-polycythemia sequence
- How do sustained birth tears after vaginal birth affect birth tear patterns in a subsequent birth?
- Disorders of placental villous maturation in fetal death
- Atrial septal aneurysm in pregnancy: echocardiography and obstetric outcomes
- Appropriate delivery method for cardiac disease pregnancy based on noninvasive cardiac monitoring
- Original Articles – Fetus
- Success rate of five fetal cardiac views using HDlive Flow with spatiotemporal image correlation at 18–21 and 28–31 weeks of gestation
- Fetal brain development in small-for-gestational age (SGA) fetuses and normal controls
- Can fetal fractions in the cell-free DNA test predict the onset of fetal growth restriction?
- Original Articles – Newborns
- Presence of neonatal intensive care services at birth hospital and early intervention enrollment in infants ≤1500 g
- The contribution of twins conceived by in vitro fertilization to preterm birth rate: observations from a quarter of century
- Burnout in neonatal intensive care unit nurses: relationships with moral distress, adult attachment insecurities, and proneness to guilt and shame
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Women and children first: the need for ringfencing during the COVID-19 pandemic
- Review
- The decline of amniocentesis and the increase of chorionic villus sampling in modern perinatal medicine
- Original Articles – Obstetrics
- Fetal renal artery impedance in pregnancies affected by preeclampsia
- The effect of maternal position on fetal middle cerebral artery Doppler indices and its association with adverse perinatal outcomes: a pilot study
- Interpregnancy interval and the risk for recurrence of placental mediated pregnancy complications
- Short- and long-term outcomes of preterm spontaneous twin anemia-polycythemia sequence
- How do sustained birth tears after vaginal birth affect birth tear patterns in a subsequent birth?
- Disorders of placental villous maturation in fetal death
- Atrial septal aneurysm in pregnancy: echocardiography and obstetric outcomes
- Appropriate delivery method for cardiac disease pregnancy based on noninvasive cardiac monitoring
- Original Articles – Fetus
- Success rate of five fetal cardiac views using HDlive Flow with spatiotemporal image correlation at 18–21 and 28–31 weeks of gestation
- Fetal brain development in small-for-gestational age (SGA) fetuses and normal controls
- Can fetal fractions in the cell-free DNA test predict the onset of fetal growth restriction?
- Original Articles – Newborns
- Presence of neonatal intensive care services at birth hospital and early intervention enrollment in infants ≤1500 g
- The contribution of twins conceived by in vitro fertilization to preterm birth rate: observations from a quarter of century
- Burnout in neonatal intensive care unit nurses: relationships with moral distress, adult attachment insecurities, and proneness to guilt and shame
