Risk of fetal loss after chorionic villus sampling in twin pregnancy derived from propensity score matching analysis

DEGUM Recommendations on Diagnostic Puncture in Prenatal Medicine

Diagnostic puncture (amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling, and fetal blood sampling) is an essential part of prenatal diagnostics and the only established and sufficiently scientifically evaluated possibility of diagnosing genetic diseases from pregnancy-specific cells. The number of diagnostic punctures in Germany, as in other countries, has fallen significantly. This is largely due to the introduction of first-trimester screening with further detailed ultrasound examination of the fetus and the analysis of cf-DNA (cell-free DNA) from maternal blood (noninvasive prenatal test - NIPT). On the other hand, knowledge about the incidence and appearance of genetic diseases has increased. The development of modern molecular genetic techniques (microarray and exome analysis) makes a differentiated investigation of these diseases increasingly possible. The requirements for education and counseling regarding these complex correlations have thus increased. The studies performed in recent years make it clear that diagnostic puncture performed in expert centers is associated with a low risk of complications. In particular, the procedure-related miscarriage risk hardly differs from the background risk for spontaneous abortion. In 2013, the Section of Gynecology and Obstetrics of the German Society for Ultrasound in Medicine (DEGUM) published recommendations on diagnostic puncture in prenatal medicine 1. The developments described above and new findings in recent years make it necessary to revise and reformulate these recommendations. The aim of this review is to compile important and current facts regarding prenatal medical puncture (including technique, complications, genetic examinations). It is intended to provide basic, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on diagnostic puncture in prenatal medicine. It replaces the publication from 2013 1.

Pregnancy and perinatal outcomes of early vs late selective termination in dichorionic twin pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes of dichorionic twin pregnancies undergoing early vs late selective termination of pregnancy (ST).

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Web of Science databases were searched electronically up to March 2022. The primary outcome of this study was pregnancy loss prior to 24 weeks' gestation. The secondary outcomes included preterm birth (PTB) before 37, 34, and 32 weeks, preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM), gestational age (GA) at delivery, Cesarean delivery, mean birth weight, 5-min Apgar score < 7, overall neonatal morbidity and neonatal survival. Only prospective or retrospective studies reporting data on the outcome of early (before 18 weeks) vs late (at or after 18 weeks) ST in dichorionic twin pregnancies were considered suitable for inclusion. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies. Random-effects head-to-head meta-analysis was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Seven studies reporting on 649 dichorionic twin pregnancies were included in this systematic review. The risk of pregnancy loss prior to 24 weeks was significantly lower in dichorionic twin pregnancies undergoing early compared with late ST (1% vs 8%; odds ratio (OR), 0.25 (95% CI, 0.10-0.65); P = 0.004). The risk of PTB was significantly lower in dichorionic twin pregnancies undergoing early compared with late ST when considering PTB before 37 weeks (19% vs 45%; OR, 0.36 (95% CI, 0.23-0.57); P < 0.00001), before 34 weeks (4% vs 19%; OR, 0.24 (95% CI, 0.11-0.54); P = 0.0005) and before 32 weeks (4% vs 20%; OR, 0.21 (95% CI, 0.05-0.85); P = 0.03). The mean birth weight was significantly greater in the early-ST group (mean difference (MD), 392.2 g (95% CI, 59.1-726.7 g); P = 0.02), as was the mean GA at delivery (MD, 2.47 weeks (95% CI, 0.04-4.91 weeks); P = 0.049). There was no significant difference between dichorionic twin pregnancies undergoing early compared with late ST in terms of PPROM (P = 0.27), Cesarean delivery (P = 0.38), 5-min Apgar score < 7 (P = 0.35) and neonatal survival of the non-reduced twin (P = 0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of pregnancy loss prior to 24 weeks and the rate of PTB before 37, 34 and 32 weeks were significantly higher in dichorionic twin pregnancies undergoing late vs early ST, thus highlighting the importance of early diagnosis of fetal anomalies in twin pregnancies. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Reappraisal of evolving methods in non-invasive prenatal screening: Discovery, biology and clinical utility

Non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) offers an opportunity to screen or determine features associated with the fetus. Earlier, prenatal testing was done with cytogenetic procedures like karyotyping or fluorescence in-situ hybridization, which necessitated invasive methods such as fetal blood sampling, chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis. Over the last two decades, there has been a paradigm shift away from invasive prenatal diagnostic methods to non-invasive ones. NIPS tests heavily rely on cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA). This DNA is released into the maternal circulation by placenta. Like cffDNA, fetal cells such as nucleated red blood cells, placental trophoblasts, leukocytes, and exosomes or fetal RNA circulating in maternal plasma, have enormous potential in non-invasive prenatal testing, but their use is still limited due to a number of limitations. Non-invasive approaches currently use circulating fetal DNA to assess the fetal genetic milieu. Methods with an acceptable detection rate and specificity such as sequencing, methylation, or PCR, have recently gained popularity in NIPS. Now that NIPS has established clinical significance in prenatal screening and diagnosis, it is critical to gain insights into and comprehend the genesis of NIPS de novo. The current review reappraises the development and emergence of non-invasive prenatal screen/test approaches, as well as their clinical application, with a focus, on the scope, benefits, and limitations.