Startseite Comparison of pregnancy outcomes after second trimester amniocentesis between procedures performed by experts and non-experts
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Comparison of pregnancy outcomes after second trimester amniocentesis between procedures performed by experts and non-experts

  • Tanapak Wisetmongkolchai , Fuanglada Tongprasert , Kasemsri Srisupundit , Suchaya Luewan , Kuntharee Traisrisilp , Theera Tongsong und Phudit Jatavan ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 9. Dezember 2020

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the rate of fetal loss in pregnancy after second trimester amniocentesis between procedures performed by experts and non-experts and to assess other pregnancy complications as secondary outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed on singleton pregnancies that underwent mid-trimester amniocenteses in a single institution. The fetal loss rates of procedures performed by experts and non-experts were collected and analyzed. Other adverse pregnancy outcomes were also examined.

Results

In total, 14,450 amniocenteses were performed during the study period. These included 11,357 (78.6%) procedures in the group expert operators and 3,093 (21.4%) procedures in the group non-expert operators. In the non-expert group, the fetal loss rate was slightly increased but not significantly (p=0.24).In addition, the higher number of spontaneous abortions was associated with blood-stained amniotic fluid sample (p<0.001; RR=9.28). Multiple needle insertions also increased in the non-expert group significantly. However, no difference in pregnancy outcomes was found between in single and multiple needle insertions.

Conclusions

The amniocentesis procedures performed by the non-experts was not increase the fetal loss rate. However, the other adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth, low birth weight and fetal growth restriction were significantly increased in the non-expert group.


Corresponding author: Phudit Jatavan, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai50200, Thailand, Phone: 66 53 936429, E-mail:

Funding source: Chiang Mai University

Award Identifier / Grant number: CMU-2563

Award Identifier / Grant number: DPG6280003

  1. Research funding: The article was funded by Thailand Research Fund (DPG6280003) and Chiang Mai University Research Fund.

  2. Author contributions: Conceived and designed the study: TW, TT; Collected data: TW, PJ,FT, KT, KS, SL; Analyzed the data: TT; Wrote the manuscript: TW, PJ; Edited the manuscript: TT, FT, KT, KS, SL. All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  3. Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.

  4. Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.

  5. Ethical approval: Approval for the study was obtained from the Committee on Human Research at Chiang Mai University, Thailand.

  6. Data availability: The data of this study is available from the corresponding author.

References

1. American College of O, Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice B-O, Committee on G, Society for Maternal-Fetal M. Practice bulletin no. 162: prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders. Obstet Gynecol 2016;127:e108–22.10.1097/AOG.0000000000001405Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

2. Marthin, T, Liedgren, S, Hammar, M. Transplacental needle passage and other risk-factors associated with second trimester amniocentesis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997;76:728–32. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016349709024337.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Horger, EOIII, Finch, H, Vincent, VA. A single physician’s experience with four thousand six hundred genetic amniocenteses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:279–87. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2001.116737.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Blessed, WB, Lacoste, H, Welch, RA. Obstetrician-gynecologists performing genetic amniocentesis may be misleading themselves and their patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:1340–2. discussion 2–4. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2001.115049.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Caughey, AB, Hopkins, LM, Norton, ME. Chorionic villus sampling compared with amniocentesis and the difference in the rate of pregnancy loss. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:612–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000232512.46869.fc.Suche in Google Scholar

6. Tabor, A, Vestergaard, CH, Lidegaard, O. Fetal loss rate after chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis: an 11-year national registry study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;34:19–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6377.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

7. Margioula-Siarkou, C, Karkanaki, A, Kalogiannidis, I, Petousis, S, Dagklis, T, Mavromatidis, G, et al.. Operator experience reduces the risk of second trimester amniocentesis-related adverse outcomes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013;169:230–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.03.027.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Corrado, F, Cannata, ML, La Galia, T, Magliarditi, M, Imbruglia, L, D’Anna, R, et al.. Pregnancy outcome following mid-trimester amniocentesis. J Obstet Gynaecol 2012;32:117–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2011.633717.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

9. Theodora, M, Antsaklis, A, Antsaklis, P, Blanas, K, Daskalakis, G, Sindos, M, et al.. Fetal loss following second trimester amniocentesis. Who is at greater risk? How to counsel pregnant women?. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016;29:590–5. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2015.1012061.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Bakker, M, Birnie, E, Robles de Medina, P, Sollie, KM, Pajkrt, E, Bilardo, CM. Total pregnancy loss after chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis: a cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017;49:599–606. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15986.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

11. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.20353.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2020-09-13
Accepted: 2020-11-20
Published Online: 2020-12-09
Published in Print: 2021-05-26

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. In Memorian
  3. Robert L. Brent, MD, PhD (1927–2021)
  4. Review
  5. Implications of the vaginal microbiome and potential restorative strategies on maternal health: a narrative review
  6. Original Articles – Obstetrics
  7. Disorders of placental villous maturation are present in one-third of cases with spontaneous preterm labor
  8. Gestational iron deficiency anemia is associated with preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, and postpartum infections
  9. Women with high plasma levels of PBDE-47 are at increased risk of preterm birth
  10. Racial disparities in recurrent preterm delivery risk: mediation analysis of prenatal care timing
  11. Doppler ultrasonography of the uterine artery in correlation with KANET
  12. The cumulative impact of parity on the body mass index (BMI) in a non-selected Lower Saxony population
  13. The relation between second-trimester placental elasticity and poor obstetric outcomes in low-risk pregnancies
  14. Comparison of pregnancy outcomes after second trimester amniocentesis between procedures performed by experts and non-experts
  15. Effect of vitamin D3 supplementation during pregnancy on high risk factors — a randomized controlled trial
  16. Educating future professionals in perinatal medicine: the attitude of medical and nursing students towards childbirth
  17. Original Articles – Fetus
  18. Normal values of cardiac axis (CA) measurements in healthy fetuses during the first trimester screening ultrasound
  19. Original Articles – Neonates
  20. Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on breastfeeding rates in a neonatal intensive care unit
  21. Factors associated with extubation failure in very low birth weight infants: a cohort study in the northeast Brazil
  22. Perinatal outcome of in vitro fertilization pregnancies in women with polycystic ovary syndrome by pregravid BMI
  23. Evaluation of audio-voice guided application for neonatal resuscitation: a prospective, randomized, pilot study
  24. Letter to the Editor
  25. Systematic screening for SARS-CoV-2 in pregnant women admitted for delivery: not as easy as it sounds
Heruntergeladen am 12.10.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jpm-2020-0430/html?lang=de
Button zum nach oben scrollen