Amniocentesis Precoz: Estudio Citogenético en 505 Embarazadas

Luz Mery Bernal Parra; Thomaz Rafael Gollop; Nadyr Naccache

doi:10.22490/24629448.490

Vol. 9 No. 15 (2011)

Published

2011-06-15

PDF (Spanish)

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

The Early Amniocentesis: Cytogenetic Study in 505 Pregnant Amniocentese Precoce: Estudo Citogenético Em 505 Gestantes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22490/24629448.490

Section

Research Article (before OJS)

Luz Mery Bernal Parra

Thomaz Rafael Gollop

Nadyr Naccache

Cytogenetic diagnosis in amniotic fluid after early amniocentesis is an alternative to woman in the first trimester of pregnancy. The aim of this study was to ascertain the type and frequency of chromosomal aberrations in amniotic fluid samples collected after early amniocentesis (EA). In the period of five years, 531 EA were carried out in 505 patients (479 single and 26 multiple gestations) the gestational age of whom varied between 12 + 0/7 - 14 + 6/7 weeks + days. The main indication for offering the procedure was advanced maternal age (66.3% cases). Cultures were established in Chang or Amniomax media, using flask incubation. The time to obtain the cytogenetic preparations ranged from 7 to 22 days (15,5± 2.8m ±s.d.). At least 25 cells were analyzed per patient. The time to provide the cytogenetic results ranged from 12 to 25 days (18.7± 2.8 days, m ±s.d). The culture success rate was 98.7%. Abnormal karyotypes were identified in 22 cases (4.2%); three (0.6%) of these were balanced and 19 (3.6%) were unbalanced chromosomal rearrangements. The most frequent unbalanced chromosomal aberration was trisomy 21 (27.3%). Five cases of marker chromosomes were identified, three of which were mosaic. Six abnormal results found in chorionic villus sampling were confirmed. The frequency of pseudomosaicism was 2.3%. Our data confirm the accuracy of cytogenetic studies on amniotic fluid collected through EA. When established routine procedures and standardized protocols are used, the incidence of culture success increases significantly, and the mean time to deliver the results decreases.

prenatal diagnosis, early amniocentesis, chromosomal abnormalities. diagnóstico pré-natal, amniocentese precoce, anomalias cromossômicas.

Jorgensen F.S., Bang J., Lind A.M., Christensen B. (1992).genetic amniocentesis at 7-14 weeks of gestation. Prenat.Diagn. 12:277-283.

Lockwood D.H., Neu R.L (1993). Cytogenetic analyses of 1375 amniotic fluid specimens form pregnancies with gestational age less than 14 weeks. Prenat.Diagn., 13:801-805.

Schulman L.P., Elias 8., Phillips O.P., Grevengood C., Dungan J.S., Simpson J.L. (1994). Amniocentesis performed at 14 weeks’ gestation or earlier. Comparison with first-trimester transabdominal chorionic villus sampling.Obstet. GynecoL, 83:543—548.

Daniel A., NG A., kuah K.B., Reiha S., Malafiej P. (1998). A study of early amniocentesis for prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis.Prenat .Diagn., 18(1):21-28.

Gollop T.R., Naccache N.F., Pieri P.C., Frigerio M.V., Zanforlin S.M. (1994). Amniocentese Precoce com resultados rapidos: Analise de 167 casos. Livro de abstracts, II Encontro Nacional de Medicina Fetal. Belo Horizonte.

Nacache N., Jehee F., Bernal L.M., Gollop T.R (1996). Amniocentese Precoce entre 12 e 15 semanas de gestacao. Relato de 328 casos. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Fetal., 2:35-39.

Henry G.P., Miller W.A., 1992. Early Amniocentesis. J. Reprod. Med. 37(5):396-402.

Hus L.Y.F., Kaffe S., Jenkins E., Alonso L., Benn P.A., David K., Hirschhom K.,Lieber E., Shanske A., Shapiro L.R., Schutta E., Warbunton D. (1992). Proposed guidelines for diagnosis of chromosome mosaicism in amniocytes based and data derived for chromosome mosaicism and pseudomosaicism studies. Prenat.Diagn. 12(7):555-573.

Hus L.Y.F., Benn P.A. (1999). Revised guidelines for the diagnosis of mosaicism in amniocytes.Prenat. Diagn. 19:1081-1082.

Fernandez J.M., Diaz J., Sanz R., Ramos C. (1997). Biopsia corial y amniocentesis en el primer trimestre. Situacion actual. Prog. Diagn. Prenat., 9(9):500-509.

Caron L., Tihy F., Dallaire L. (1999). Frequencies of chromosomal abnormalities at amniocentesis: Over 20 year of cytogenetic analyses in one laboratory. Am. J. Med. Genet., 82:149-154.

Karaoguz MY, Bal F, Yakut T, et al . Cytogenetic results of amniocentesesismaterials : incidence of abnormal karyotypes en the Turkish collaborative study. Genet Counsel . 2006;17:219-30.

NeagosDaniela ,CretuRuxandra; Sfetea Roxana Corina , BohilteaLaurentiuCamil. The importance of Screening and Prenatal Diagnosis in the Identification of the Numerical ChomosomalAbnormalities. A Journal of Clinical Medicine , Volume 6 N°. 3 2011.

Gaudry Patrice , MaximeEsvan, Jean-Baptiste Meynard, Aziza Lebbar, AnesChoiset, Fanny Lewin, VassiliTsatsaris, Emmanuelle Pannier, Gilles Grange. Amniocentesis Performed for Karyotyping after Identified Ultrasonographic Abnormalities: What to Expect?. Fetal DiagnTher 2012; 3:55-62.

Sundberg K, Lundsteen C., Philip J. (1999). Comparison of cell cultures, chromosome quality and karyotypes obtained after chorionic villus sampling and early amniocentesis with filter technique. Prenat.Diagn., 1912-16.

Nicolaides K.H., Brizol M.L., Patel F., Snijders R.J (1996). Comparison of Chorion Villus Sampling And early Amniocentesis for karyotyping in 1492 singlentonpregnanacies.Fetat.Diagn.Ther., 11:9-15.

Eiben B., Hammans W., Hansen S., Trawicki W., Osthelder B., Stelzer A.,mJaspers K.D., Goebel R. (1997). On the complication risk of Early Amniocentesis versus Standard Amniocentesis. Fetal.Diagn.Ther., 12:140-144.

The Canadian Early and Mid-Trimester Amniocentesis Trial (CEMAT) Group. (1998). Randomised trial to asses safety and fetal outcome of early and midtrimester amniocentesis. Lancet, 351:242-247.

Winsor E.J.T., Tomkins D.J., Kalousek D., Farrel S., Wyatt P., Fan Y., Carter R., Wang H.,Dallaire L., Eydoux P., Welch J.P., Dawson A., Lin J.C.C., Singer J., Johnson JA, Wilson D. (1999). Cytogenetic aspects of the Canadian Early and Mid-trimester Amniotic Fluid Trial (CEMAT). Prenat.Diagn., 19:620-627.

Tharmaratnam S., Sadek S., Steele E.K., Harper M.A., Stewart F.J., Nevin J., NevinN.C.,Doman J.C. (1998). Early amniocentesis: Efect of removing a reduced volume of amniotic fluid on pregnancy outcome. Prenat.Diagn., 18:773-778.

Johnson J.M., Wilson R.D., Winsor E.J., Singer J., Dansereau J., Kalousek D.K (1996). The Early Amniocentesis Study: A randomized clinical trial of early amniocentesis versus midtrimesteramniocentesis.Fetat. Diagn. Ther. 11:85-93.

Farran I., Pla F., Mediano C., Canet Y., Carreras E., de la Riva A.M. Cabero L. (1993). Amniocentesis precoz: Resultados en 206 casos con seguimiento neonatal. Prog. Diagn.Prenat., 5:73-78.

Gabarron J., Lopez I. (1998). Citogenetica clasica : avances y limitaciones. Prog. Diagn.Prenat., 10(3):83-88.

Joffe R. (1989). Diagnostico citogenética pre-natal atraves da amniocentese em gestantes com 35 anos ou mais de idade. Tese de Doutoramento, departamento de Biologia, Instituto de Biociencias da Universidade de Sao Paulo. Sao Paulo.

Plasencia A., Hemando I., Benavides A., Coto E., FemandezToral J. (1996). Frecuencia de cromossomopatias balanceadas en la población detectada a partir de estudios prenatales. Prog.Diagn.Prenat, 8(3):127—130.

Blennow E., Bui T.H., Kristoffersson U.,Vujie M. Anneren G., Holmberg E., Nordenskjold M. (1994). Swedish survey on extra structurally abnormal chromosomes in 39.105 consecutive prenatal diagnosis: prevalence an characterization by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Prenat.Diagn., 14:1019-1024.

Li M.M., Howard-Peebles P.N.., Killos L.D., Fallon L., listgarten E., Stanley W.S. (2000). Characterization and clinical implications of marker chromosomes identified at prenatal diagnosis.Prenat. Diagn. 20:138-143.

Buckton K., Spowart G., Newton M.S., Evans H.J. (1985).Forty four probands with in additional “marker chromosome”. Hum. Genet., 69:353-370.

Stamberg J., Thomas G.H. (1986). Unusual supemumerary chromosome: types encountered !n a referred population, and high incidence of associated matemal chromosome abnormalities. Hum. Genet, 72:140-14-4.

Warburton D. (1991). De Novo balanced chromosome rearrangements and extra marker chromosomes identified at prenatal diagnosis: Clinical significance and distribution of breakpoints, Am. J. Hum. Genet., 49:995-1013.

Hus L.Y.F., YU M.T., Richkind K.E., Van Dyke D.L., Crandall B.F., Saxe D.F.,Khodr G.S., Mennuti M., Stetten G., Miller W.A., Priest J.H. (1996). Incidence and significance of chromosome mosaicism involving an structural abnormality diagnosed prenatally through amniocentesis: A collaborative study. Prenat.Diagn. 16:1-28.

Berghella V., Wapner R.J., Yang-FengT.,Mahoney M.J. (1998. Prenatal confirmation of true fetal trisomy 22 mosaicism by fetal skin biopsy following normal fetal blood sampling.Prenat. Diagn., 18:384-389.

Marques I. (1998). Mosaicismo em diagnostico pre-natal. Prog. Diagn. Prenat.,103: 89-92.

Krawczun M.S., Jenkins E.C.,Masia A., Kunapom S., Stark S.L., Dunca Ch., Sklower S.L., Rudelli R.D. (1989). Chromosomal abnormalities in amniotic fluid cell cultures: A comparison of apparent pseudomosaicism in Chang and RPMI-1649 media. Clin.Genet., 35:139-145.

Tejada M.I. (1994). Citogenetica del liquidoamniotico.Posibilidadestecnicas, eficiencia y aspectoscontrovertidos.Prog.Diagn.Prenat, 6(2):105-118.

Verma R., Kleyman S., Conte R. (1998). Chromosomal mosaicisms during prenatal diagnosis. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest., 45:12-15.

Elejalde B.R., de Elejalde M.M., Acuna J.A., Thelen D., Trujillo C., Karrman M. (1990). Prospective study amniocentesis performed between weeks 9 and 16 of gestation. Its feasibility, risks, complications and use in early genetic prenatal diagnosis. Am. J. Med. Genet., 35:188-196.

Rebello M.T., Gray C.T., Rooney D.E., Smith J.H., Hacketl G.A., Loeffler F.E., HorvvellD.H.,Beard RYW., Coleman D.V. (1991). Cytogenetic studies of amniotic fluid taken before the 15th week of pregnancy for earlier prenatal.Prenat.Diagn., 11:35-40.

Kerber S., Helde K.R. (1993).Early genetic Amniocentesis-4 years’ experience. Prenat.Diagn., 13(1): 21-27.

Benn P.A., Hus L.Y.F.(1983). Maternal cell contamination of amniotic fluid cell cultures: results of a US nationwide survey. Am. J. Med. Genet., 15:297-305.

Benn P.A., Schonhaut A.G., Hus L.Y.F.(1983). A high incidence of maternal cell contamination of amniotic fluid cell cultures: Am. J. Med. Genet., 14:361-365.

Bui T.H., Iselius L., Lindsten J. (1984). European collaborative study on prenatal diagnosis: mosaicismpseudomosaicism and single abnormal cell in amniotic fluid cell cultures. Prenat .Diagn.,(Special Issue) 4:145-162.

Worton R.G., Stem P. (1984). A Canadiam collaborative study of mosaicism in amniotic fluid cell cultures.Prenat.Diagn., (Spec.lss)., 4:131-144.

Laboratory Guidelines for Detection, Interpretation, and Reporting of Maternal Cell Contamination in Prenatal Analyses. The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, Vol. 13, No. 1 January 2011.

Eiben B., Hammans W., Trawicki W., Goebel R. (1998).Early Amniocentesis versus Chorionic Villus Sampling. Prenat.Diagn. Letters to the editor., 18:405-406.

Schrijer I, Cherny SC, Zehnder JL: Testing for maternal cell contamination in prenatal samples: a comprehensive survey of current diagnostic practices in 35 molecular diagnostic laboratories. J MolDiagn 2007, 9:394-40

Bernal Parra, L. M., Gollop, T. R., & Naccache, N. (2011). The Early Amniocentesis: Cytogenetic Study in 505 Pregnant Amniocentese Precoce: Estudo Citogenético Em 505 Gestantes. NOVA Biomedical Sciences Journal, 9(15), 71-82. https://doi.org/10.22490/24629448.490

Download Citation

Published

The Early Amniocentesis: Cytogenetic Study in 505 Pregnant Amniocentese Precoce: Estudo Citogenético Em 505 Gestantes

Declaración de privacidad.

Keywords