Abstract
Objective
The objective was to determine whether pregnancy loss after amniocentesis is related to the amount of amniotic fluid obtained during the procedure.
Study design
The study enrolled 2,400 women, all in their sixteenth to twentieth week of pregnancy. A 22G spinal needle was inserted for amniocentesis. The amount of amniotic fluid obtained from 1,200 patients in Group 1 was 4 ml and from 1,200 patients in Group 2 was 20 ml. In Group 1, the amniotic fluid was analyzed with a quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction technique, whereas in Group 2, conventional cytogenetic analysis was used. SPSS 16.0 (chi-square and t tests) was used for statistical analyses.
Results
In Group 1, postamniocentesis premature rupture of membranes (PROM) occurred in four patients (0.3%). There was one unintended fetal loss and postamniocentesis miscarriage rate was 0.08%. In Group 2, postamniocentesis PROM occurred in 12 patients (1%). Eight of these patients experienced fetal loss (0.67%). Fetal loss rates were higher in Group 2 compared with Group 1. These results did not show statistical differences between the groups according to chi-square test (P > 0.05).
Conclusion
Although statistical analysis denies the positive effect of obtaining small amounts of amniotic fluid to reduce fetal loss rates in patients after amniocentesis, six to eight times lower fetal loss rates based on the amount of fluid obtained cannot be undervalued.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cirigliano V, Voglino G, Cañadas MP (2004) Rapid prenatal diagnosis of common chromosome aneuploidies by QF-PCR. Assessment on 18,000 consecutive clinical samples. Mol Hum Reprod 10:839–846. doi:10.1093/molehr/gah108
Cirigliano V, Voglino G, Marongiu A (2006) Rapid prenatal diagnosis by QF-PCR: evaluation of 30,000 consecutive clinical samples and future applications. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1075:288–298. doi:10.1196/annals.1368.039
Erez Y, Ben-Shushan A, Elchalal U (2007) Maternal morbidity following routine second trimester genetic amniocentesis. Fetal Diagn Ther 22:226–228. doi:10.1159/000098723
Horger EO 3rd, Finch H, Vincent VA (2001) A single physician’s experience with four thousand six hundred genetic amniocenteses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:279–288. doi:10.1067/mob.2001.116737
Kong CW, Leung TN, Leung TY (2006) Risk factors for procedure-related fetal losses after mid-trimester genetic amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn 26:925–930. doi:10.1002/pd.1528
Müngen E, Tütüncü L, Muhcu M (2006) Pregnancy outcome following second-trimester amniocentesis: a case–control study. Am J Perinatol 23:25–30. doi:10.1055/s-2005-923432
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 23:488–492. doi:10.1002/pd.623
Nassar AH, Martin D, Gonzalez-Quintero VH (2004) Genetic amniocentesis complications: is the incidence overrated? Gynecol Obstet Invest 58:100–104. doi:10.1159/000078793
Papantoniou NE, Daskalakis GJ, Tziotis JG (2001) Risk factors predisposing to fetal loss following a second trimester amniocentesis. BJOG 108:1053–1056
Saltvedt S, Almström H (1999) Fetal loss rate after second trimester amniocentesis at different gestational age. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 78:10–14. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0412.1999.780104.x
Seeds JW (2004) Diagnostic mid trimester amniocentesis: how safe? Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:607–615. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.05.078
Turhan NO, Eren U, Seckin NC (2005) Second-trimester genetic amniocentesis: 5-year experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet 271:19–21. doi:10.1007/s00404-004-0635-9
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cebesoy, F.B., Balat, O., Pehlivan, S. et al. Is pregnancy loss after amniocentesis related to the volume of amniotic fluid obtained?. Arch Gynecol Obstet 279, 357–360 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0740-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0740-2