Download PDF
Ultraschall Med 2013; 34(5): 435-440
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1335685
Quality Assurance
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Empfehlungen der DEGUM zur Durchführung von Amniozentese und Chorionzottenbiopsie

DEGUM 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
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

14 September 2012

30 April 2013

Publication Date:
14 October 2013 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Key words

amniocentesis - chorionic villus sampling - prenatal ultrasound
 

  • 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Chaoui R, Heling KS, Mielke G et al. Qualitätsanforderungen der DEGUM zur Durchführung der fetalen Echokardiografie. Ultraschall in Med 2008; 29: 197-200
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Tabor A, Alfirevic Z. Update on Procedure-Related Risks for Prenatal Diagnosis Techniques. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010; 27: 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cederholm M, Haglund B, Axelsson O. Infant morbidity following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal karyotyping. BJOG 2005; 112: 394-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 WHO/PAHO Consultation of CVS. Evaluation of Chorion Villus Sampling Safety. Prenat Diagn 1999; 19: 97-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Amniocentesis and Chorion Villous Sampling, Green-top Guideline No 8. 2010
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Merz E. Invasive pränatale Diagnostik. In: Merz E, (Hrsg.): Sonographische Diagnostik in Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. Band 2: Geburtshilfe. Thieme; 2002: 532-560
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Brambati B, Oldrini A, Lanzani A et al. Transabdominal versus transcervical chorionic villus sampling: a randomized trial. Hum Reprod 1988; 3: 811-813
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Alfirevic Z, Sundberg K, Brigham S. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; CD003252. 3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Smidt-Jensen S. Transabdominal chorionic villus sampling. Method, safety and accuracy. Dan Med Bull 1998; 45: 402-411
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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; DOI: 10.1002/uog.10152.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Seeds JW. Diagnostic mid trimester amniocentesis: How safe?. Am J Obst Gynecol 2004; 191: 608e16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Mujezinovic F, Alfirevic Z. Procedure-Related Complications of Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villous Sampling. A Systematic Review. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110: 687-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Midtrimester amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis. Safety and accuracy. JAMA 1976; 236: 1471-1476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Eddleman KA, Malone FD, Sullivan L et al. Pregnancy Loss Rates After Midtrimester Amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 1067-1072
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Hill LM, Platt LD, Kellogg B. Rh sensitization after genetic amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol 1980; 56: 459-461
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Alfirevic Z. Who should be allowed to perform amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 12-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Leschot NJ, Verjaal M, Treffers PE. Risks of midtrimester amniocentesis: assessment in 3,000 pregnancies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92: 804-807
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Wijnberger LDE, van der Schouw YT, Christiaens GCML. Learning in medicine: chorionic villus sampling. Prenat Diagn 2000; 20: 241-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar