Obstetrical outcomes after first-trimester chorionic villus sampling in twin pregnancies: A retrospective case-control study

Amniocentesis and Risk of Fetal Loss in Dichorionic-Diamniotic Twin Pregnancy: A Case-Control Study

OBJECTIVE

There is a paucity of data regarding the risk of fetal loss due to invasive prenatal diagnosis in twins. The aim of the present study is to assess the rate of amniocentesis-related fetal loss in uncomplicated dichorionic-diamniotic (DCDA) twin pregnancies.

METHODS

Retrospective observational case-control study. DCDA twin pregnancies undergoing amniocentesis between January 2010 and December 2023 formed the case group. The control group comprised counterparts who did not undergo amniocentesis. The primary outcome of the study was procedure-related fetal loss. Secondary outcomes were miscarriage rate, overall fetal loss and gestational age at birth.

RESULTS

Our dataset included 220 and 662 women in the case and control groups, respectively. No difference in the primary outcome was found: procedure-related fetal loss of one fetus was 0.9% in the case group and 1.1% in the control group, and of both fetuses it was 0.5% in both groups (p = 0.982). No difference was found in secondary outcomes: the fetal loss rate of one fetus was 1.8% in the case group and 2.1% in the control group, while that of both fetuses it was 0.5% and 0.8% respectively (p = 0.853). Multivariate analysis confirmed the nonsignificant effect of amniocentesis on the risk of fetal loss.

CONCLUSION

Amniocentesis does not seem to increase the risk of fetal loss in uncomplicated DCDA twin pregnancies above the baseline risk of loss among twin gestations.

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

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the risk of fetal loss associated with chorionic villus sampling (CVS) in twin pregnancy, using propensity score analysis.

METHODS

This was a multicenter cohort study of women with twin pregnancy undergoing ultrasound examination at 11-13 weeks' gestation, performed in eight fetal medicine units in which the leadership were trained at the Harris Birthright Research Centre for Fetal Medicine in London, UK, and in which the protocols for screening, invasive testing and pregnancy management are similar. The risk of death of at least one fetus was compared between pregnancies that had and those that did not have CVS, after propensity score matching (1:1 ratio). This procedure created two comparable groups by balancing the maternal and pregnancy characteristics that lead to CVS being performed, similar to how randomization operates in a randomized clinical trial.

RESULTS

The study population of 8581 twin pregnancies included 445 that had CVS. Death of one or two fetuses at any stage during pregnancy occurred in 11.5% (51/445) of pregnancies in the CVS group and in 6.3% (515/8136) in the non-CVS group (P < 0.001). The propensity score algorithm matched 258 cases that had CVS with 258 non-CVS cases; there was at least one fetal loss in 29 (11.2%) cases in the CVS group and in 35 (13.6%) cases in the matched non-CVS group (odds ratio (OR), 0.81; 95% CI, 0.48-1.35; P = 0.415). However, there was a significant interaction between the risk of fetal loss after CVS and the background risk of fetal loss; when the background risk was higher, the risk of fetal loss after CVS decreased (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.23-0.90), while, in pregnancies with a lower background risk of fetal loss, the risk of fetal loss after CVS increased (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 0.95-7.13). The effects were statistically significantly different (P-value of the interaction = 0.005). For a pregnancy in which the background risk of fetal loss was about 6% (the same as in our non-CVS population), there was no change in the risk of fetal loss after CVS, but, when the background risk was more than 6%, the posterior risk was paradoxically reduced, and when the background risk was less than 6%, the posterior risk increased exponentially; for example, if the background risk of fetal loss was 2.0%, the relative risk was 2.8 and the posterior risk was 5.6%.

CONCLUSION

In twin pregnancy, after accounting for the risk factors that lead to both CVS and spontaneous fetal loss and confining the analysis to pregnancies at lower prior risk, CVS seems to increase the risk of fetal loss by about 3.5% above the patient's background risk. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Fetal loss after chorionic villus sampling in twin pregnancy

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the chorionic villus sampling (CVS)-related risk of fetal loss in twin pregnancy after adjustment for chorionicity, nuchal translucency thickness (NT), intertwin discordance in crown-rump length (CRL), maternal demographic characteristics and serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) and free β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG).

METHODS

This was a multicenter study from eight fetal medicine units in which the leadership were trained at the Harris Birthright Research Centre for Fetal Medicine in London, UK, and in which the protocols for screening, invasive testing and pregnancy management are similar. Data were obtained prospectively from women with twin pregnancy undergoing routine ultrasound examination at 11-13 weeks' gestation. Multivariable logistic regression analysis with backward stepwise elimination was used to examine whether CVS provided a significant independent contribution to the prediction of risk of fetal loss after adjusting for maternal and pregnancy characteristics, including maternal age, racial origin and weight, method of conception, smoking status, parity, chorionicity, intertwin discordance in CRL, fetal NT ≥ 95^th percentile and free β-hCG and PAPP-A multiples of the median. Similarly, within the CVS group, multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the effect of the number of intrauterine needle insertions and size of the needle on the risk of fetal loss.

RESULTS

The study population of 8581 twin pregnancies undergoing ultrasound examination at 11-13 weeks' gestation included 316 dichorionic and 129 monochorionic twins that had CVS. First, in twin pregnancies undergoing CVS, compared to those not undergoing CVS, there was a 2-fold increased risk of fetal loss at < 24 weeks' gestation and of loss at any stage in pregnancy. Second, the factors providing a significant independent contribution to the prediction of miscarriage or fetal loss in twin pregnancy were increased maternal weight, black racial origin, monochorionicity, and more so monoamnionicity, large intertwin discordance in CRL and increased fetal NT, and, in the case of fetal loss at any stage, there was also a contribution from assisted conception and low serum PAPP-A. Third, after adjustment for maternal and pregnancy characteristics, CVS did not provide a significant contribution to the risk of fetal loss. Fourth, in twin pregnancies that had CVS, there was no significant contribution to fetal loss from the number of intrauterine needle insertions or needle size.

CONCLUSION

The 2-fold increased risk of fetal loss following CVS in twin pregnancy can, to a great extent, be explained by maternal and pregnancy characteristics rather than the invasive procedure itself. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Risk of fetal loss following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling in twin pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the rate of fetal loss following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) in twin pregnancy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies reporting procedure-related complications following amniocentesis or CVS in twin pregnancy. The primary outcome was the rate of procedure-related fetal loss. The secondary outcomes were fetal loss occurring before 24 weeks of gestation and fetal loss occurring within 4 weeks after the procedure. Head-to-head meta-analyses were used to compare directly each outcome, between women undergoing amniocentesis and those not undergoing amniocentesis and between women undergoing CVS and those not undergoing CVS, and to compute pooled risk differences (RD) between women exposed and those not exposed to each invasive procedure. Additionally, meta-analyses of proportions were used to estimate the pooled rates of each of the three outcomes in women undergoing amniocentesis or CVS and in controls.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (3419 twin pregnancies undergoing and 2517 not undergoing an invasive procedure) were included. Head-to-head meta-analyses comparing directly twin pregnancies undergoing and those not undergoing amniocentesis showed a higher risk for overall fetal loss in those undergoing amniocentesis (odds ratio (OR), 1.46 (P = 0.04); RD, 0.013 (P = 0.04)), while there was no difference in the risk of either fetal loss before 24 weeks of gestation (OR, 1.59 (P = 0.06); RD, 0.010 (P = 0.11)) or fetal loss within 4 weeks after the procedure (OR, 1.38 (P = 0.3); RD, 0.003 (P = 0.8)). Overall, the pooled rate of fetal loss was 2.4% (95% CI, 1.4-3.6%) in twin pregnancies undergoing amniocentesis compared with 2.4% (95% CI, 0.9-4.6%) in those not undergoing amniocentesis. Head-to-head meta-analyses directly comparing twin pregnancies undergoing and those not undergoing CVS showed no significant difference in either overall fetal loss (OR, 1.61 (P = 0.5); RD, 0.003 (P = 0.8)) or fetal loss before 24 weeks of gestation (OR, 1.61 (P = 0.5); RD, 0.003 (P = 0.8)). Overall, the pooled rate of fetal loss was 2.0% (95% CI, 0.0-6.5%) in twin pregnancies undergoing CVS compared with 1.8% (95% CI, 0.3-4.2%) in those not undergoing CVS.

CONCLUSION

The risk of fetal loss following amniocentesis and CVS in twins is lower than reported previously and the rate of fetal loss before 24 weeks of gestation, or within 4 weeks after the procedure, did not differ from the background risk in twin pregnancy not undergoing invasive prenatal testing. These data can guide prenatal counseling for twin pregnancies undergoing invasive procedures. © 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.