ABSTRACT
500 women with multiple pregnancies underwent amniocentesis or chorionic villus (CV) sampling at our department between January 1988 and July 1997. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the laboratory aspects and the consequences of discordant results in these pregnancies in relation to the method of sampling. Uncertain results in one or both samples, requiring further investigation were more frequent in CV samples (eight times in 163 paired samples, 5 per cent) than in amniotic fluid (AF) samples (once in 298 paired samples, 0.3 per cent). Sampling one fetus twice (erroneous sampling) was seen only once among 163 pregnancies with two CV samples in our study. Cross contamination due to mixed sampling was discovered in two of seven pregnancies that underwent DNA diagnosis in CV and might be a rather regular occuring phenomenon. In none of the 500 pregnancies mixed sampling caused diagnostic dilemmas. A third sampling problem, maternal cell contamination caused a diagnostic problem once among the AF samples. Selective fetal reduction appeared safer after CV sampling than after amniocentesis. Subsequently, CV sampling instead of amniocentesis has become the method of choice for prenatal diagnosis in multiple pregnancies in our department.
Subject(s)
Amniocentesis , Chorionic Villi Sampling , Pregnancy, Multiple , DNA/analysis , Female , Humans , Karyotyping , Pedigree , Pregnancy , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , Triplets , Twins , alpha-Fetoproteins/metabolismABSTRACT
Among 3499 cytogenetically investigated semi-direct chorionic villus samples, 219 (6.3 per cent) abnormal karyotypes were encountered. The karyotypes were considered certainly abnormal (generalized abnormal with high probability) in 109 cases (3.1 per cent), and in 110 cases (3.1 per cent) uncertainly abnormal (potentially confined to the placenta), requiring further investigation. Of these 110 uncertain abnormalities, the cytogenetic result turned out to be finally abnormal representing generalized abnormality in 36 cases (32.7 per cent), finally normal representing confined placental mosaicism (CPM) in 69 cases (62.7 per cent), and remained undetermined in 5 instances (4.5 per cent). The rate of the numbers of certainly abnormal and all (certainly + uncertainly) abnormal results, the certainty rate, and that of generalized abnormalities and all abnormalities (generalized abnormalities + CPM cases), the predictive value, are strongly correlated with the cytogenetic risk. Therefore, we advise chorionic villus sampling for cytogenetic investigation only in women with a cytogenetic risk equal to or exceeding that of a 40-year-old pregnant woman. Because of the high rate of prenatal follow-up investigations after the finding of uncertain results in semi-direct villi, semi-direct and cultured villi should be karyotyped simultaneously.
Subject(s)
Chorionic Villi Sampling , Chromosome Aberrations , Karyotyping , Adult , Female , Humans , In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence , Maternal Age , Mosaicism , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Outcome , Pregnancy, High-Risk , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
In the population of children born after prenatal cytogenetic investigation in chorionic villi at our department from 1992 to 1995 (N = 3940), three are known to us with uniparental disomy. One case of maternal heterodisomy 16 was prenatally discovered because of trisomy 16 in direct chorionic villi with subsequently normal amniotic fluid cells. The other two had normal karyotypes in chorionic villi. Maternal heterodisomy 15 was postnatally detected in one of them because of Prader-Willi syndrome. Maternal hetero/isodisomy 16 was accidentally encountered in the other case in the course of prenatal DNA analysis of the tuberous sclerosis complex 2 region at 16p13.3. A model is presented for the understanding of the various combinations of karyotypes in direct chorionic villi, cultured chorionic villi and the fetus in the case of successful and unsuccessful trisomic zygote rescue.
