Erschienen in:

2025 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

29. Invasive Pränataldiagnostik

verfasst von : Prof. Dr. med. Annegret Geipel

Erschienen in: Ultraschalldiagnostik in Geburtshilfe und Gynäkologie

Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Zusammenfassung

Die pränatale Chromosomendiagnostik ist in zahlreichen Labors als Routineverfahren etabliert. Zur Durchführung der pränatalen Analysen ist ein invasives Verfahren erforderlich. Die Amniozentese im II. Trimester stellt das weltweit am häufigsten eingesetzte Punktionsverfahren dar. Der optimale Zeitpunkt für die Durchführung der Amniozentese liegt nach 15+0 SSW. Die Chorionzottenbiopsie (CVS) steht als alternative Punktionsart für das I. Trimester zur Verfügung. Die eingriffsbedingen Verlustraten nach transabdominaler CVS und Amniozentese im II. Trimester sind mit ca. 0,1-0,2 % vergleichbar. Mit zunehmender Verbreitung und Akzeptanz der sonographischen und biochemischen Diagnostik sowie des Screenings mittels zellfreier DNA-Testung im maternalen Blut ist allerdings in vielen Ländern ein Trend zu einem Rückgang an invasiven Eingriffen insgesamt zu beobachten.

Vorheriges Kapitel Fetale Infektionen

Nächstes Kapitel Intrauterine Chirurgie

Akolekar R, Beta J, Picciarelli G, Ogilvie C, D’Antonio F (2015) Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 45:16–26CrossRefPubMed

Berry SM, Stone J, Norton ME, Johnson D, Berghella V, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) (2013) Fetal blood sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol 209:170–180CrossRefPubMed

Beta J, Zhang W, Geris S, Kostiv V, Akolekar R (2019) Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 54:452–457CrossRefPubMed

Bundesärztekammer (2018) Musterweiterbildungsordnung. https://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/BAEK/Themen/Aus-Fort-Weiterbildung/Weiterbildung/20230629_MWBO-2018.pdf

Chevreau J, Becart L, Sergent F, Foulon A, Gondry J, Jedraszak G (2022) Risk factors for failed chorionic villus sampling: results of a 4-year retrospective study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 35:141–146CrossRefPubMed

Di Mascio D, Khalil A, Rizzo G, Buca D, Liberati M, Martellucci CA, Flacco ME, Manzoli L, D’Antonio F (2020) Risk of fetal loss following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling in twin pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 56:647–655CrossRefPubMed

Elger T, Akolekar R, Syngelaki A, De Paco Matallana C, Molina FS, Gallardo Arozena M, Chaveeva P, Persico N, Accurti V, Kagan KO, Prodan N, Cruz J, Nicolaides KH (2021) Fetal loss after chorionic villus sampling in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 58:48–55CrossRefPubMed

Enzensberger C, Pulvermacher C, Degenhardt J, Kawacki A, Germer U, Gembruch U, Krapp M, Weichert J, Axt-Fliedner R (2012) Fetal loss rate and associated risk factors after amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling and fetal blood sampling. Ultraschall Med 33:E75–E79CrossRefPubMed

Ghi T, Sotiriadis A, Calda P, Da Silva Costa F, Raine-Fenning N, Alfirevic Z, McGillivray G, International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) (2016) ISUOG Practice Guidelines: invasive procedures for prenatal diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 48:256–268CrossRefPubMed

Gil MM, Accurti V, Santacruz B, Plana MN, Nicolaides KH (2017) Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 50:302–314CrossRefPubMed

Gil MM, Molina FS, Rodríguez-Fernández M, Delgado JL, Carrillo MP, Jani J, Plasencia W, Stratieva V, Maíz N, Carretero P, Lismonde A, Chaveeva P, Burgos J, Santacruz B, Zamora J, De Paco Matallana C (2020) New approach for estimating risk of miscarriage after chorionic villus sampling. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 56:656–663CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hui L, Muggli EE, Halliday JL (2016a) Population-based trends in prenatal screening and diagnosis for aneuploidy: a retrospective analysis of 38 years of state-wide data. BJOG 123:90–97CrossRefPubMed

Hui L, Tabor A, Walker SP, Kilby MD (2016b) How to safeguard competency and training in invasive prenatal diagnosis: “the elephant in the room”. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47:8–13CrossRefPubMed

Kähler C, Faber R, Geipel A, Heling KS, Kagan KO, Kozlowski P, Schramm T (2023) DEGUM recommendations on diagnostic puncture in prenatal medicine. Ultraschall Med 44:269–279PubMed

Khalifeh A, Weiner S, Berghella V, Donnenfeld A (2016) Trends in invasive prenatal diagnosis: effect of sequential screening and noninvasive prenatal testing. Fetal Diagn Ther 39:292–296CrossRefPubMed

Kosian P, Gloning KP, Germer U, Strizek B, Berg C, Gembruch U, Geipel A (2023) Maternal risk factors and their effect on outcome and procedure-related complications in cordocentesis: A multicenter retrospective study. J Clin Med12:6841

Kozlowski P, Burkhardt T, Gembruch U, Gonser M, Kähler C, Kagan KO, von Kaisenberg C, Klaritsch P, Merz E, Steiner H, Tercanli S, Vetter K, Schramm T (2019) DEGUM, ÖGUM, SGUM and FMF Germany recommendations for the implementation of first-trimester screening, detailed ultrasound, cell-free DNA screening and diagnostic procedures. Ultraschall Med 40:176–193CrossRefPubMed

Krapp M, Thomsen Y, Ludwig A, Enzensberger C, Kreiselmaier P (2017) Indications for fetal invasive procedures at the end of an era. Ultraschall Med 38:78–82PubMed

Litwinska E, Litwinska M, Czuba B, Gach A, Kwiatkowski S, Kosinski P, Kaczmarek P, Wielgos M (2022) Amniocentesis in twin pregnancies: risk factors of fetal loss. J Clin Med 11:1937CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lostchuck E, Poulton A, Halliday J, Hui L (2019) Population-based trends in invasive prenatal diagnosis for ultrasound-based indications: two decades of change from 1994 to 2016. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 53:503–511CrossRefPubMed

Manegold-Brauer G, Berg C, Flöck A, Rüland A, Gembruch U, Geipel A (2015) Uptake of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and impact on invasive procedures in a tertiary referral center. Arch Gynecol Obstet 292:543–548CrossRefPubMed

Mari G, Norton ME, Stone J, Berghella V, Sciscione AC, Tate D, Schenone MH, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) (2015) Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) Clinical Guideline #8: the fetus at risk for anemia-diagnosis and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 212:697–710CrossRefPubMed

Monni G, Corda V, Iuculano A, Afshar Y (2020) The decline of amniocentesis and the increase of chorionic villus sampling in modern perinatal medicine. J Perinat Med:/j/jpme.ahead-of-print/jpm-2020-0035/jpm-2020-0035.xml

Navaratnam K, Khairudin D, Chilton R, Sharp A, Attilakos G, Stott D, Relph S, Spencer R, Badr DA, Carlin A, Jani J, Kilby MD, Sebghati M, Khalil A, Alfirevic Z (2022) Foetal loss after chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis in twin pregnancies: A multicentre retrospective cohort study. Prenat Diagn 42:1554–1561CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Petersen OB, Vogel I, Ekelund C, Hyett J, Tabor A, Danish Fetal Medicine Study Group, Danish Clinical Genetics Study Group (2014) Potential diagnostic consequences of applying non-invasive prenatal testing: population-based study from a country with existing first-trimester screening. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43:265–271CrossRefPubMed

Prefumo F, Fichera A, Fratelli N, Sartori E (2019) Fetal anemia: diagnosis and management. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 58:2–14CrossRefPubMed

Salomon LJ, Sotiriadis A, Wulff CB, Odibo A, Akolekar R (2019) Risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling: systematic review of literature and updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 54:442–451CrossRefPubMed

Soyman Z, Kelekci S, Demirel E, Ekmekci E, Atasever M (2022) Chorionic villus sampling and preeclampsia & eclampsia: coincidence or not? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 35:6522–6526CrossRefPubMed

Tanvisut R, Wanapirak C, Piyamongkol W, Sirichotiyakul S, Tongprasert F, Srisupundit K, Luewan S, Traisrisilp K, Jatavan P, Tongsong T (2020) Cordocentesis-associated fetal loss and risk factors: single-center experience with 6650 cases. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 56:664–671CrossRefPubMed

Theodora M, Antsaklis A, Antsaklis P, Blanas K, Daskalakis G, Sindos M, Mesogitis S, Papantoniou N (2016) Fetal loss following second trimester amniocentesis. Who is at greater risk? How to counsel pregnant women? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 29:590–595CrossRefPubMed

Ville Y, Cooper M, Revel A, Frydman R, Nicolaides KH (1995) Development of a training model for ultrasound-guided invasive procedures in fetal medicine. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 5:180-183CrossRefPubMed

Wah YM, Leung TY, Cheng YKY, Sahota DS (2017) Procedure-related fetal loss following chorionic villus sampling after first-trimester aneuploidy screening. Fetal Diagn Ther 41:184–190CrossRefPubMed

Walter A, Simonini C, Gembruch U, Flöck A, Strizek B, Geipel A (2022) First trimester screening – current status and future prospects after introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) at a tertiary referral center. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 82:1068–1073CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Warsof SL, Larion S, Abuhamad AZ (2015) Overview of the impact of noninvasive prenatal testing on diagnostic procedures. Prenat Diagn 35:972-979CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Invasive Pränataldiagnostik
verfasst von: Prof. Dr. med. Annegret Geipel
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Buch: Ultraschalldiagnostik in Geburtshilfe und Gynäkologie
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-67372-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-662-67373-7

Copyright-Jahr: 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-67373-7_29

Springerpflege

Zusammenfassung

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten