Ultraschall in der Medizin - European Journal of Ultrasound, Inhaltsverzeichnis Ultraschall Med 2013; 34(5): 435-440DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1335685 Quality Assurance © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New YorkEmpfehlungen der DEGUM zur Durchführung von Amniozentese und ChorionzottenbiopsieDEGUM Guidelines for Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling C. Kähler 1 Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, Praxis für Pränatalmedizin, Erfurt , U. Gembruch 2 Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine, University Hospital, Bonn , K.-S. Heling 3 Praxis, Prenetal Diagnosis and Human Genetics, Berlin , W. Henrich 4 Obstetrics, Charite Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin , T. Schramm 5 Pränatal-Medizin, Munich› InstitutsangabenArtikel empfehlen Abstract Key words Key wordsamniocentesis - chorionic villus sampling - prenatal ultrasound Volltext Referenzen Literatur 1 Merz E, Eichhorn KH, Kaisenberg C et al. Aktualisierte Qualitätsanforderungen an die weiterführende differenzierte Ultraschalluntersuchung in der pränatalen Diagnostik (= DEGUM-Stufe II) im Zeitraum von 18 + 0 bis 21 + 6 Schwangerschaftswochen. Ultraschall in Med 2012; 33: 593-596 2 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (DGGG), Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Ultraschalldiagnostik (ARGUS), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ultraschall in der Medizin – Sektion Gynäkologie (DEGUM-Stufe III). Ultraschalluntersuchung in der Frühschwangerschaft. AWMF–Leitlinien-Register Nr. 015/032, 12.10.2010 3 Chaoui R, Heling KS, Mielke G et al. Qualitätsanforderungen der DEGUM zur Durchführung der fetalen Echokardiografie. Ultraschall in Med 2008; 29: 197-200 4 Merz E, Meinel K, Bald R et al. DEGUM- Stufe- III Empfehlungen zur „weiterführenden“ sonographischen Untersuchung (= DEGUM Stufe II) im Zeitraum 11 – 14 Schwangerschaftswochen. Ultraschall in Med 2004; 25: 218-220 5 Tabor A, Alfirevic Z. Update on Procedure-Related Risks for Prenatal Diagnosis Techniques. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010; 27: 1-7 6 Canadian Early and Mid-trimester Amniocentesis Trial (CEMAT) Group. Randomised trial to assess safety and fetal outcome of early and midtrimester amniocentesis. Lancet 1998; 351: 242-247 7 Nicolaides K, Brizot Mde L, Patel F et al. Comparison of chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis for fetal karyotyping at 10–13 weeks’ gestation. Lancet 1994; 344: 435-439 8 Philip J, Silver RK, Wilson RD et al. Late first-trimester invasive prenatal diagnosis: results of an international randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103: 1164-1173 9 Sundberg K, Bang J, Smidt-Jensen S et al. Randomised study of the risk of fetal loss related to early amniocentesis versus chorionic villus sampling. Lancet 1997; 350: 697-703 10 Cederholm M, Haglund B, Axelsson O. Infant morbidity following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal karyotyping. BJOG 2005; 112: 394-402 11 Firth HV, Boyd PA, Chamberlain P et al. Severe limb abnormalities after chorion villus sampling at 56-66 days’ gestation. Lancet 1991; 337: 762-763 12 Mastroiacovo P, Tozzi AE, Agosti S et al. Transverse limb reduction defects after chorion villus sampling: a retrospective cohort study. GIDEF--Gruppo Italiano Diagnosi Embrio-Fetali. Prenat Diagn 1993; 13: 1051-1056 13 WHO/PAHO Consultation of CVS. Evaluation of Chorion Villus Sampling Safety. Prenat Diagn 1999; 19: 97-99 14 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Amniocentesis and Chorion Villous Sampling, Green-top Guideline No 8. 2010 15 Gosden C, Tabor A, Leck I et al. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling. In: Wald N, Leck I, (eds.): Antenatal and Neonatal Screening. London: Oxford University Press; 2000: 470-517 16 Fryburg JS, Dimaio MS, Yang-Feng TL et al. Follow-up of pregnancies complicated by placental mosaicism diagnosed by chorionic villus sampling. Prenatal Diagnosis 1993; 13: 481-494 17 Tyson RW. Chromosomal abnormalities in stillbirth and neonatal death. In: Dimmick JE and Kalousek DK (eds.): Developmental pathology of the embryo and fetus. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1992: 103-109 18 Wilkins-Haug L, Quade B, Morton CC. Confined placental mosaicism as a risk factor among newborns with fetal growth restriction. Prenat Diagn 2006; 26: 28-32 19 Amor DJ, Neo WT, Waters E et al. Health and developmental outcome of children following prenatal diagnosis of confined placental mosaicism. Prenat Diagn 2006; 26: 443-448 20 Miura K, Yoshiura K, Miura S et al. Clinical outcome of infants with confined placental mosaicism and intrauterine growth restriction of unknown cause. Am J Med Genet A 2006; 17: 1827-1833 21 Mandelbrot L, Jasseron C, Ekoukou D et al. Amniocentesis and mother-to-child human immunodeficiency virus transmission in the Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le SIDA et les Hépatites Virales French Perinatal Cohort. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200: 160.e1-160.e9 22 Merz E. Invasive pränatale Diagnostik. In: Merz E, (Hrsg.): Sonographische Diagnostik in Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. Band 2: Geburtshilfe. Thieme; 2002: 532-560 23 Brambati B, Oldrini A, Lanzani A et al. Transabdominal versus transcervical chorionic villus sampling: a randomized trial. Hum Reprod 1988; 3: 811-813 24 Alfirevic Z, Sundberg K, Brigham S. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; CD003252. 3 25 Smidt-Jensen S. Transabdominal chorionic villus sampling. Method, safety and accuracy. Dan Med Bull 1998; 45: 402-411 26 Yukobowich E, Anteby EY, Cohen SM et al. Risk of Fetal Loss in Twin Pregnancies Undergoing Second Trimester Amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98: 231-234 27 Agarwal K, Alfirevic Z. Pregnancy Loss after Chorionic Villus Sampling and Genetic Amniocentesis in Twin Pregnancies- a Systematic Review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol [published online]: 2012; 28 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.e1-257.e6 29 Vayssière C, Benoist G, Blondel B et al. Twin pregnancies:guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF). Eur J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 156: 12-17 30 Seeds JW. Diagnostic mid trimester amniocentesis: How safe?. Am J Obst Gynecol 2004; 191: 608e16 31 Devlieger R, Millar LK, Bryant-Greenwood G et al. Fetal membrane healing after spontaneous and iatrogenic membrane rupture: A review of current evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195: 1512-1520 32 Borgida AF, Mills AA, Feldman DM et al. Outcome of pregnancies complicated by ruptured membranes after genetic amniocentesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183: 937-939 33 Hösli I, Walter-Göbel I, Tercanli S et al. Spontaneous fetal loss rates in a non-selected population. Am J Med Gene 2001; 100: 106-109 34 Mujezinovic F, Alfirevic Z. Procedure-Related Complications of Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villous Sampling. A Systematic Review. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110: 687-94 35 Midtrimester amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis. Safety and accuracy. JAMA 1976; 236: 1471-1476 36 An assessment of the hazards of amniocentesis. Report to the Medical Research Council by their Working Party on Amniocentesis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1978; 85: 1-41 37 Simpson NE et al. Prenatal diagnosis of genetic disease in Canada: report of a collaborative study. Can Med Assoc J 1976; 115: 739-748 38 Tabor A, Philip J, Madsen M et al. Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet 1986; 1: 1287-1293 39 Odibo AO, Gray DL, Dicke JM et al. Revisiting the Fetal Loss Rate After Second-Trimester Genetic Amniocentesis A Single Center’s 16-Year Experience. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 589-595 40 Eddleman KA, Malone FD, Sullivan L et al. Pregnancy Loss Rates After Midtrimester Amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 1067-1072 41 Caughey AB, Hopkins LM, Norton ME. Chorionic villus sampling compared with amniocentesis and the difference in the rate of pregnancy loss. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 612-616 42 Kozlowski P, Knippel P, Stressig R. Individual Risk of Fetal Loss Following Routine Second Trimester Amniocentesis: A Controlled Study of 20460 Cases. Ultraschall in Med 2008; 29: 165-172 43 Tabor A, Vestergaard CHF, Lidegaard Ø. Fetal loss rate after chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis: an 11-year national registry study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 19-24 44 Towner D, Currier RJ, Lorey FW et al. Miscarriage risk from amniocentesis performed for abnormal maternal serum screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 196: 608.e 1-5 45 Muller F, Thibaud D, Poloce F et al. Risk of amniocentesis in women screened positive for Down syndrome with second trimester maternal serum markers. Prenat Diagn 2002; 22: 1036-1039 46 Enzensberger C, Pulvermacher C, Degenhardt J et al. Fetal Loss Rate and Associated Risk Factors After Amniocentesis, Chorionic Villus Sampling and Fetal Blood Sampling. Ultraschall in Med 2012; 33 (7) E75-E79 47 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 88, December 2007. Invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110: 1459-1467 48 Bombard AT, Powers JF, Carter S et al. Procedure-related fetal losses in transplacental versus nontransplacental genetic amniocentesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172: 868-872 49 Marthin T, Liedgren S, Hammar M. Transplacental needle passage and other risk-factors associated with second trimester amniocentesis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997; 76: 728-732 50 Hill LM, Platt LD, Kellogg B. Rh sensitization after genetic amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol 1980; 56: 459-461 51 Johnson JM, Wilson RD, Singer J et al. Technical factors in early amniocentesis predict adverse outcome. Results of the Canadian Early (EA) versus Mid-trimester (MA) Amniocentesis Trial. Prenat Diagn 1999; 19: 732-738 52 Alfirevic Z. Who should be allowed to perform amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 12-13 53 Leschot NJ, Verjaal M, Treffers PE. Risks of midtrimester amniocentesis: assessment in 3,000 pregnancies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92: 804-807 54 Wijnberger LDE, van der Schouw YT, Christiaens GCML. Learning in medicine: chorionic villus sampling. Prenat Diagn 2000; 20: 241-246 55 Nizard J, Duyme M, Ville Y. Teaching ultrasound-guided invasive procedures in fetal medicine: learning curves with and without an electronic guidance system. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 274-277
