Invasive Procedures for Prenatal Diagnosis (Content last reviewed: 15th March 2020)

Chapter 8 - Invasive Procedures for Prenatal Diagnosis (Content last reviewed: 15th March 2020)

from Section 2 - Early Prenatal Problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 November 2017

Kate Navaratnam and

Edited by

Bernard Gonik and

David James: Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Philip Steer: Affiliation:
Imperial College London
Carl Weiner: Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Bernard Gonik: Affiliation:
Wayne State University, Detroit
Stephen Robson: Affiliation:
University of Newcastle

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Invasive prenatal tests, including chorionic villus sampling, amniocentesis, fetal blood sampling, and fetal tissue biopsy, allow examination of fetal genetic material and tissue and provide information for the management of fetal infections and anemia. The specific test employed is usually dependent on the indication, parental wishes, and the timing of preceding screening tests.

Type: Chapter
Information: High-Risk Pregnancy
Management Options
, pp. 189 - 206

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108349185 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

First published in: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme. Cut off changes to Down’s syndrome screening. 2008. http://fetalanomaly.screening.nhs.uk/programmestatements#fileid11755 (accessed 01 January 2015).Google Scholar

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Advanced Training Skills Module: Fetal Medicine. London: RCOG, 2010. https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/careers-training/specialty-training-curriculum/atsms/atsm-fetal-medicine/ (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling. Green-top Guideline No. 8. London: RCOG, 2010. https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg_8.pdf (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar

Blessed, WB, Lacoste, H, Welch, RA. Obstetrician-gynecologists performing genetic amniocentesis may be misleading themselves and their patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 1784: 1340–2.Google Scholar

Lane, S, Weeks, A, Scholefield, H, Alfirevic, Z. Monitoring obstetricians’ performance with statistical process control charts. BJOG 2007; 114: 614–18.Google Scholar

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Amniocentesis. Consent Advice 6. London: RCOG, 2006.Google Scholar

Weiner, CP, Okamura, K. Diagnostic fetal blood sampling-technique related losses. Fetal Diagn Ther 1996; 11: 169–75.Google Scholar

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Use of Anti D Immunoglobulin for Rh prophylaxis. Green-top Guideline No. 22. London: RCOG, 2002.Google Scholar

Fung Kee Fung, K, Eason, E. Prevention of Rh alloimmunization. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003; 25: 765–73.Google Scholar

Gordon, MC, Narula, K, O’Shaughnessy, R, Barth, WH. Complications of third-trimester amniocentesis using continuous ultrasound guidance. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99: 255–9.Google Scholar PubMed

Cahill, AG, Macones, GA, Stamilio, DM, et al. Pregnancy loss rate after mid-trimester amniocentesis in twin pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200: 257.e1–e6.Google Scholar

Yi, W, Pan, CQ, Hao, J, et al. Risk of vertical transmission of hepatitis B after amniocentesis in HBs antigen-positive mothers. J Hepatol 2014; 60: 523–9.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Maiques, V, Garcia-Tejedor, A, Perales, A, Cordoba, J, Esteban, RJ. HIV detection in amniotic fluid samples. Amniocentesis can be performed in HIV pregnant women? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003; 108: 137–41.Google Scholar

Alfirevic, Z, Navaratnam, K, Mujezinovic, F. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; (9): CD003252.Google Scholar

Mujezinovic, F, Alfirevic, Z. Procedure-related complications of amniocentesis and chorionic villous sampling: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110: 687–94.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Giorlandino, C, Cignini, P, Cini, M, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis before second-trimester genetic amniocentesis (APGA): a single-centre open randomised controlled trial. Prenat Diagn 2009; 29: 606–12.Google Scholar

Thirkelson, A. Cell culture and cytogenetic technique. In Murken, JD, Stengel-Rutdowski, S, Schwinger, E (eds), Third European Conference on Prenatal Diagnosis of Genetic Disorders. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke, 1979, pp. 258–70.Google Scholar

Wolstenholme, J. Confined placental mosaicism for trisomies 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 16 and 22: their incidence, likely origins, and mechanisms for cell lineage compartmentalization. Prenat Diagn 1996; 16: 511–24.Google Scholar

Firth, HV, Boyd, PA, Chamberlain, P, et al. Severe limb abnormalities after chorionic villus sampling at 56–66 days’ gestation. Lancet 1991; 337: 762–3.Google Scholar

Carlin, AJ, Alfirevic, Z. Techniques for chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis: a survey of practice in specialist UK centres. Prenat Diagn 2008; 28: 914–19.Google Scholar

Young, C, Von Dadelszen, P, Alfirevic, Z. Instruments for chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (1): CD000114.Google Scholar

Gordon, MC, Narula, K, O’Shaughnessy, R, Barth, WH. Complications of third-trimester amniocentesis using continuous ultrasound guidance. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99: 255–9.Google Scholar

Van Schoubroeck, D, Verhaeghel, J. Does local anesthesia at mid-trimester amniocentesis decrease pain experience? A randomized trial in 220 patients. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 16: 536–8.Google Scholar

Mujezinovic, F, Alfirevic, Z. Procedure-related complications of amniocentesis and chorionic villous sampling: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110: 687–94.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Tabor, A, Philip, J, Madsen, M, et al. Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet 1986; 1: 1287–93.Google Scholar PubMed

Daffos, F, Cappella-Pavlovsky, M, Forestier, F: A new procedure for fetal blood sampling in utero: preliminary results of fifty-three cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983; 146: 985–7.Google Scholar

Orlandi, F, Damiani, G, Jaklil, C, Lauricella, S, Bertolino, O, Maggio, A. The risks of early cordocentesis (12–21 weeks): analysis of 500 procedures. Prenat Diagn 1990; 10: 425–8.Google Scholar

Bovicelli, L, Orsini, LF, Grannum, PA. A new funipuncture technique: two-needle ultrasound and needle-biopsy guided procedure. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 73: 428–31.Google Scholar

Fassihi, H, Eady, RA, Mellerio, JE, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of severe inherited skin disorders: 25 years experience. Br J Dermatol 2006; 154: 106–13.Google Scholar

Hoffman, EP. Genotype/phenotype correlations in Duchenne/Becker dystrophy. Mol Cell Biol Hum Dis Ser 1993; 3: 12–36.Google Scholar