Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 1
  • Print publication year: 2010
  • Online publication date: October 2010

Chapter 11 - Parental chromosome testing

Summary

Ultrasound is an integral part of early pregnancy assessment. This chapter covers the normal findings in early pregnancy, the ultrasound diagnosis of early pregnancy failure, and the spectrum of appearances of perigestational hemorrhage. It discusses the first-trimester evaluation of chorionicity and amnionicity in multiple gestations. Chorionicity is the most important prognostic indicator in multiple gestations therefore it is vital to make an accurate determination of this any time a multiple pregnancy is seen. Monochorionic diamniotic twins are at risk for specific complications such as twin-twin transfusion syndrome; this makes the prognosis worse than for dichorionic twins. Knowledge of the normal imaging findings and expected developmental milestones is vital for accurate interpretation. Recognition of monochorionic pregnancies and significant anomalies allows for appropriate early referral for specialist evaluation. Ultrasound is the most accurate way to triage patients with pain and/or bleeding in the first trimester.

References

1. BraekeleerM de, DaoTN. Cytogenetic studies in couples experiencing repeated pregnancy losses. Hum Reprod 1990; 5: 518–28.
2. TharapelAT, TharapelSA, BannermanRM. Recurrent pregnancy losses and parental chromosome abnormalities: a review. BJOG 1985; 92: 899–914.
3. CliffordK, RaiR, ReganL. An informative protocol for the investigation of recurrent miscarriage: preliminary experience of 500 consecutive cases. Hum Reprod 1994; 9: 1328–32.
4. FranssenMTM, KorevaarJC, LeschotNJet al. Selective chromosome analysis in couples with two or more miscarriages: a case-control study. Br Med J 2005; 331: 137–41.
5. HumeRF, Kilmer-ErnstP, WolfeHMet al. Prenatal cytogenetic abnormalities: correlations of structural rearrangements and ultrasonographically detected fetal anomalies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 173: 1334–6.
6. ForresterMB, MerzRD. Patterns of chromosomal translocations identified by a birth defects registry, Hawaii, 1986–2000. Genetic Testing 2004; 8: 204–8.
7. KotzotD. Review and meta-analysis of systematic searches for uniparental disomy (UPD) other than UPD 15. Am J Med Genet 2002; 111: 366–75.
8. MadanK. Paracentric inversions: a review. Hum Genet 1995; 96: 503–15.
9. PettenatiMJ, RaoPN, PhelanMCet al. Paracentric inversions in humans: a review of 446 paracentric inversions with presentation of 120 new cases. Am J Med Genet 1995; 55: 171–87.
10. HolzgreveW, SchonbergSA, DouglasRGet al. X-Chromosome hyperploidy in couples with multiple spontaneous abortions. Obstet Gynecol 1984; 63: 237–40.
11. SachsES, JahodaMGJ, van HemelJOet al. Chromosome studies of 500 couples with two or more abortions. Obstet Gynecol 1985: 63: 375–8.
12. KuoP, GuoHR. Mechanism of recurrent spontaneous abortions in women with mosaicism of X-chromosome aneuploidies. Fertil Steril 2004; 82: 1594–601.
13. Diego-AlvarezD, Garcia-HoyosM, TrujilloMJet al. Application of quantitative fluorescent PCR with short tandem repeat markers to the study of aneuploidies in spontaneous miscarriages. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 1235–43.
14. AhnJW, OgilvieCM, WelchA. Detection of subtelomere imbalance using MLPA: validation, development of an analysis protocol, and application in a diagnostic centre. BMC Med Genet 2007; 8: 1–13.
15. BenkhalifaM, KasakyanS, ClementPet al. Array comparative genomic hybridization profiling of first-trimester spontaneous abortions that fail to grow in vitro. Prenatal Diagnosis 2005; 25: 894–900.
16. SchaefferAJ, ChungJ, HeretisKet al. Comparative Genomic Hybridization-Array analysis enhances the detection of aneuploidies and submicroscopic imbalances in spontaneous miscarriages. Am J Hum Genet 2004; 74: 1168–74.
17. KaareM, PainterJN, UlanderVMet al. Sex chromosome characteristics and recurrent miscarriage. Fertil Steril 2008; 90: 2328–33.
18. CarpH, FeldmanB, Oelsneret al. Parental karyotype and subsequent live births in recurrent miscarriage. Fertil Steril 2004; 81: 1296–301.
19. Sugiura-OgasawaraM. OzakiY, SatoTet al. Poor prognosis of recurrent aborters with either maternal or paternal reciprocal translocations. Fertil Steril 2004; 81: 367–73.
20. StephensonMD, SierraS. Reproductive outcomes in recurrent pregnancy loss associated with a parental carrier of a structural chromosome arrangement. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 1076–82.
21. FranssenMT, KorevaarJC, van der VeenFet al. Reproductive outcome after chromosome analysis in couples with two or more miscarriages: an index-control study. Br Med J 2006; 332: 759–63.
22. Sugiura-OgasawaraM, AokiK, FujiiTet al. Subsequent pregnancy outcomes in recurrent miscarriage patients with a paternal or maternal carrier of a structural chromosome rearrangement. J Hum Genet 2008; 53: 622–8.
23. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice Bulletin. Management of recurrent early pregnancy loss. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2002; 78: 179–90.
24. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The Investigation and Treatment of Couples with Recurrent Miscarriage. Guideline No. 17. 2003.
25. JauniauxE, FarquharsonRG, ChristiansenOBet al. Evidence-based guidelines for the investigation and medical treatment of recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 2216–22.
26. Dutch Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Guideline: Recurrent Miscarriage. Utrecht, the Netherlands, 2007 (in Dutch).
27. HassoldT, ChiuD. Maternal age-specific rates of numerical chromosome abnormalities with special reference to trisomy. Hum Genet 1985; 70: 11–17.
28. Nybo-AndersenAM, WohlfahrtJ, ChristensPet al. Maternal age and fetal loss: population based register linkage study. Br Med J 2000; 320: 1708–12.
29. FoyR, PenneyGC, GrimshawJMet al. A randomised controlled trial of a tailored multifaceted strategy to promote implementation of a clinical guideline on induced abortion care. BJOG 2004; 111: 726–33.
30. BeroLA, GrilliR, GrimshawJMet al. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group. Br Med J 1998; 317: 465–8.
31. FranssenMTM, KorevaarJC, TjoaWMet al. Inherited unbalanced structural chromosome abnormalities at prenatal diagnosis are rarely ascertained through recurrent miscarriage. Prenatal Diagn 2008; 28: 408–11.
32. VansenneF, de BorgieAJM, KorevaarJCet al. Low uptake of prenatal diagnosis after established carrier status of a balanced structural chromosome abnormality in couples with recurrent miscarriage. Fertil Steril 2010; in press.
33. OtaniT, RocheM, MizuikeMet al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis significantly improves the pregnancy outcome of translocation carriers with a history of recurrent miscarriage and unsuccessful pregnancies. Reprod Biomed Online 2006; 13: 869–74.
34. MunneS, SandalinasM, EscuderoTet al. Outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis of translocations. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 1209–18.
35. LimCK, JunJH, MinDMet al. Efficacy and clinical outcome of preimplantation genetic diagnosis using FISH for couples of reciprocal and Robertsonian translocations: the Korean experience. Prenat Diagn 2004; 24: 556–61.
36. Sugiura-OgasawaraM, SuzumoriK. Can preimplantation genetic diagnosis improve success rates in recurrent aborters with translocations? Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 3267–70.
37. GoossensV, HartonG, MoutouCet al. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection VIII: cycles from January to December 2005 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2006; Hum Reprod 2008; 23: 2629–45.
38. HeinemanMJ, BlekerOP, EversLH, HeintzAPH. Obstetrie en Gynaecologie. Maarssen: Elsevier Press, 2007.