Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 284, Issue 4, pp 793–797 | Cite as

Fetal loss associated with second trimester amniocentesis

  • Somsri Pitukkijronnakorn
  • Patama Promsonthi
  • Panyu Panburana
  • Umaporn Udomsubpayakul
  • Apichart Chittacharoen
Materno-fetal Medicine



To evaluate the fetal loss rate associated with second trimester amniocentesis.


All cases of pregnant women ≥35 years old with gestational age beyond 16 weeks between 1997 and 2006 were included in this study. The study group consisted of all cases that the patients decided to have second trimester genetic amniocentesis. The control group was a randomized selection of pregnant women who refused any procedures. The ratio of the study case to the control case was 2:1. The fetal loss rates after amniocentesis before 24, and 28 complete weeks and the pregnancy outcome were analyzed.


2,990 cases in the study group and 1,495 cases in the control group were used for this analysis. The mean maternal age in the study group and control group were 36.89 ± 1.63 and 36.78 ± 1.59 years old, respectively (P = 0.239). The procedure-related fetal loss before 24 and 28 complete weeks were 0.17 and 0.50%, respectively. The most common presenting symptom before fetal loss in the study cases was abdominal pain. Almost all of the cases leading to abortion had symptoms initiated after 48 h post procedure. Significantly higher chances of abortion occurred in pregnant women ≥41 years old (P = 0.008).


The procedure-related fetal loss rates in pregnant women ≥35 years old after amniocentesis before 24 and 28 complete weeks were 0.17 and 0.50%, respectively. The certain factors influencing the risk of fetal loss might be independent of the amniocentesis procedure.


Second trimester amniocentesis Prenatal diagnosis Fetal loss rate 


  1. 1.
    Seeds JW (2004) Diagnostic mid trimester amniocentesis: how safe? Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:608–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1995) Chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis: recommendations for prenatal counselling. MMWR Recomm Rep 44:1–12Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Valsky DV, Daum H, Yagel S (2007) Rectus sheath hematoma as a rare complication of genetic amniocentesis. J Ultrasound Med 26:371–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2001) Prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosomal abnormalities. ACOG Practice Bulletin 27, ACOG Washington (DC)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tabor A, Philip J, Madsen M, Bang J, Obel EB, Norgaard-Pedersen B (1986) Randomizes controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet 1:1287–1293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nanal R, Kyle P, Soothill PW (2003) A classification of pregnancy losses after invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures: an approach to allow comparison of units with a different case mix. Prenat Diagn 23:488–492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nassar AH, Martin D, Gonzalez-Quintero VH (2004) Genetic amniocentesis complications: is the incidence overrated? Gynecol Obstet Invest 58:100–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smidt-Jensen S, Permin M, Philip J (1992) Randomised comparison of amniocentesis and transabdominal and transcervical chorionic villus sampling. Lancet 340:1237–1244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kong CW, Leung TN, Leung TY, Chan LW, Sahota DS, Fung TY et al (2006) Risk factors for procedure-related fetal losses after mid-trimester genetic amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn 26:925–930PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wiener JJ, Farrow A, Farrow SC (1990) Audit of amniocentesis from a district general hospital: is it worth ? BMJ 300:1243–1245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roper EC, Konje JC, De Chazal R, Duckett DP, Oppenheimer CA, Taylor DJ (1999) Genetic amniocentesis: gestation-specific pregnancy outcome and comparison of outcome following early and traditional amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn 19:803–807PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Papantoniou NE, Daskalakis GJ, Tziotis JG, Kitmirides SJ, Mesogitis SA, Antsaklis AJ (2001) Risk factors predisposing to fetal loss following a second trimester amniocentasis. BJOG 108:1053–1056PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tongsong T, Wanapirak C, Sirivatanapa P, Piyamongkol W, Sirichotiyakul S, Yampochai A (1998) Amniocentesis-related fetal loss: a cohort study. Obstet Gynecol 92:64–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mungen E, Tutuncu L, Muhcu M, Yergok YZ (2006) Pregnancy outcome following second trimester amniocentesis: a case–control study. Am J Perinatol 23:25–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Odibo AO, Gray DL, Dicke JM, Stamilio DM, Macones GA, Crane JP (2008) Revisiting the fetal loss rate after second-trimester genetic amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol 111(3):589–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mujezinovic F, Alfirevic Z (2007) Procedure-related complications of amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systemic review. Obstet Gynecol 110:687–694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Towner D, Currier RJ, Lorey FW, Cunningham GC (2007) Miscarriage risk from amniocentesis performed for abnormal maternal serum screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 196:608.e1–608.e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Muller F, Thibaud D, Poloce F, Gelineau MC, Bernard M, Brochet C et al (2002) Risk of amniocentesis in women screened positive for Down syndrome with second trimester maternal serum markers. Prenat Diagn 22:1036–1039PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Caughey AB, Hopkins LM, Norton ME (2006) Chorionic villus sampling compared with amniocentesis and the difference in the rate of pregnancy loss. Obstet Gynecol 108:612–616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Andreasen E, Kristoffersen K (1989) Incidence of spontaneous abortion after amniocentesis: influence of placental localization and past obstetric and gynecology history. Am J Perinatol 6:268–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Antsaklis A, Papantoniou N, Xygakis A, Mesogitis S, Tzortzis E, Michalas S (2000) Genetic amniocentesis in women 20–34 years old: associated risks. Prenat Diagn 20:247–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eddleman KA, Malone FD, Sullivan L, Dukes K, Berkowitz RL, Kharbutli Y et al (2006) Pregnancy loss rates after midtrimester amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol 108:1067–1072PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pitukkijronnakorn S, Manonai J, Chittacharoen A (2009) Doctor’s attitudes towards invasive prenatal diagnosis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 35:73–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Somsri Pitukkijronnakorn
    • 1
  • Patama Promsonthi
    • 1
  • Panyu Panburana
    • 1
  • Umaporn Udomsubpayakul
    • 2
  • Apichart Chittacharoen
    • 1
  1. 1.Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi HospitalMahidol UniversityBangkokThailand
  2. 2.Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Research Center, Ramathibodi HospitalMahidol UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations