Strong preference for “genetic sonography” as non-invasive option of prenatal diagnosis in patients with pregnancies following intracytoplasmic sperm injection
- Authors: Geipel A.1, Gembruch U.1, Ludwig M.1, Germer U.1, Schwinger E.1, Dormeier A.1, Diedrich K.1
-
Affiliations:
- Medical University
- Issue: Vol 48, No 5S (1999)
- Pages: 66-66
- Section: Articles
- URL: https://journals.eco-vector.com/jowd/article/view/100912
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/JOWD100912
- ID: 100912
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
Objective: The option of prenatal diagnosis with nuchal translucency measurement at 10-14 weeks of gestation and second trimester targeted ultrasound including fetal echocardiography (genetic sonography) is reported in patients after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).
Full Text
Objective: The option of prenatal diagnosis with nuchal translucency measurement at 10-14 weeks of gestation and second trimester targeted ultrasound including fetal echocardiography (genetic sonography) is reported in patients after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).
Methods: From January 1995 to December 1998, 153 consecutive patents, who had become pregnant after ICSI, were studied. They attended our unit for first and second trimester sonography.
Results: 67.8% primigravid and 80.9%o nulliparous women with a mean age of 32.3 years (+4,1) and 29.6% > 35 years of age were included. Multiple pregnancy rate was 19.7%, 189 fetuses were screened in total. Due to the introduction of genetic sonography in 1995, the rate of invasive prenatal diagnosis decreased from 74% in 1995, to 48%, 36% and 19% in 1996, 1997 and 1998, respectively. Two inherited numerical and structural chromosomal anomalies in clinically healthy children at birth (1.0%) and four major malformations in all life born children and late abortions (2.1%) were recorded.
Conclusion: The results demonstrate that especially in women of advanced reproductive age with a long history of infertility a detailed, genetic sonography may be a reasonable and highly accepted alternative to avoid even the relatively low risks associated with invasive screening procedures.
About the authors
A. Geipel
Medical University
Author for correspondence.
Email: info@eco-vector.com
Germany, Lubeck
U. Gembruch
Medical University
Email: info@eco-vector.com
Germany, Lubeck
M. Ludwig
Medical University
Email: info@eco-vector.com
Germany, Lubeck
U. Germer
Medical University
Email: info@eco-vector.com
Germany, Lubeck
E. Schwinger
Medical University
Email: info@eco-vector.com
Germany, Lubeck
A. Dormeier
Medical University
Email: info@eco-vector.com
Germany, Lubeck
K. Diedrich
Medical University
Email: info@eco-vector.com
Germany, Lubeck