Fernández-Hernández L, Domínguez-Castro M, Ibañez-Salvador JC,Grether-González P, Aguinaga-Ríos M

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 454-460
PDF size: 518.20 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD) allows identification of fetal diseases, mainly aneuploidy. With the addition of first-trimester prenatal screening and structural ultrasound, IPD indications have changed.
Objective: To describe the current indications for IPD in pregnant patients at INPer.
Methods: Descriptive and retrospective study. We reviewed medical records of patients in which IPD was performed during a period of 2.5 years.
Results: A total of 339 studies were performed: 81% by amniocentesis (AC), 13% by chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and 6% by cordocentesis or somatocentesis. The most common indications for AC were: advanced maternal age (AMA) (43%), fetuses with multiple defects by ultrasonido (23%) and presence of soft markers for aneuploidies (9%). For CVS were: cystic hygroma (24%), Increased nuchal translucency (NT) (24%), and AMA (18%). When the indication was only AMA, 1.5% of fetus presented aneuploidy. In women under 38 years and normal ultrasoud, chromosomal abnormalities were not detected. The increased NT in women ‹<35 years had a 21% detection and in patients › 35 years it increased to 33%.
Conclusions: We observed that the group who had normal translucencia nucal and AMA presented a low risk of chromosomal abnormalities. In the presence of an increased NT, 33% of fetuses were affected, so that measuring TN is considered the best non invasive PD tool. The average age with cytogenetic abnormalities was above 38 years, so we suggest to offer IPD in women above 38 years-old.

REFERENCES

1. Collins S, Impey L. Prenatal diagnosis: Types and techniques. Early Hum Dev 2012;88:3-8.

2. Guanciali P, Iezzi I, Matarrelli B, Morizio E, et al. Effectiveness of cross trimester test in selecting high-risk pregnant women to undergo invasive prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2010;30:795-796.

3. Nicolaides K. Screening for fetal aneuploidies at 11 to 13 weeks. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:7-15.

4. Ferguson M, Bianchi D. Prenatal Diagnosis: past, present, and future. Prenat Diagn 2010;30:601-604.

5. Tabor A, Alfirevic Z. Update on Procedure-Related Risks for Prenatal Diagnosis Techniques. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010;27:1-7.

6. Cerillo M, Yerena MC, González ME, Godoy H, col. Amniocentesis genética en población de alto riesgo. Experiencia en 3,081 casos. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2009;77:174-182.

7. Grether P, Cámara V, Ulloa V, Salas C, col. Diagnóstico prenatal por amniocentesis. Experiencia clínica y citogenética en 1,500 casos. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2010;78:493- 503.

8. Gagnon A. Evaluation of Prenatally Diagnosed Structural Congenital Anomalies. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2009;3:875-881.

9. Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetrician-Gynecologists ACOG. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:1459-1467.

10. Grether P, Aguinaga M. Guías de práctica clínica. COMEGO. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2009;77:527-546.

11. Mendoza E, Grether P, Hernández M, Guzmán M y col. Defectos congénitos asociados con translucencia nucal aumentada. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2010;78:533-539.

12. Bellini C, Hennekan RCM, Fulcheri E, Rutigliani M, et al. Etiology of nonimmune hydrops fetalis: A systematic review. Am J Med Genet Part A 2009;149A:844-851.

13. Scholl J, Durfee SM, Russell MA, Heard AJ, et al. First- Trimester Cystic Hygroma: Relationship of Nuchal Translucency Thickness and Outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120:551-559.

14. Morgan T. Turner Syndrome: Diagnosis and Management. Am Fam Physician 2007;1:405-410

15. Sifakis S, Papantpniou N, Kappou D, Antsaklis A. Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: current knowledge and novel insights. J Perinat Med 2012;40:319-327.