Outcomes of amniocentesis at a tertiary maternal-fetal medicine unit in Malaysia: a five-year retrospective cohort study of cytogenetic yield and procedure-related complications

Shashi Indran Naidu; Jes Sie Lee; Gillian Yi Zhen Tan; Yuvintherr Jeyah Balan; Joanne Xu Mei Lim; Nurul Huda M. Nor; Shaarmini Santharaguru; Kamarudin Juliana; Krishna Kumar

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20253062

Authors

Shashi Indran Naidu Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Tuanku Ja’afar, Seremban, Malaysia
Jes Sie Lee Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Tuanku Ja’afar, Seremban, Malaysia
Gillian Yi Zhen Tan Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Tuanku Ja’afar, Seremban, Malaysia
Yuvintherr Jeyah Balan Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Tuanku Ja’afar, Seremban, Malaysia
Joanne Xu Mei Lim Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Tuanku Ja’afar, Seremban, Malaysia
Nurul Huda M. Nor Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Tuanku Ja’afar, Seremban, Malaysia
Shaarmini Santharaguru Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Tuanku Ja’afar, Seremban, Malaysia
Kamarudin Juliana Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Tuanku Ja’afar, Seremban, Malaysia
Krishna Kumar Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Tuanku Ja’afar, Seremban, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20253062

Keywords:

Karyotyping, Miscarriage, Complications, Amniocentesis, Preterm premature rupture of membrane

Abstract

Background: Amniocentesis is the most widely performed invasive prenatal diagnostic procedure worldwide. While its diagnostic accuracy is well established, procedure-related risks such as miscarriage and preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (PPROM) remain central to patient counselling. Although international safety and diagnostic outcome data are robust, regional evidence from Southeast Asia is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the cytogenetic yield and short-term complications of amniocentesis performed in a Malaysian tertiary maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) training centre over a five-year period.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted, including all women who underwent amniocentesis at hospital Tuanku Jaafar (HTJ), Seremban, between January 2018 and December 2022. Maternal demographics, ethnicity, indications, cytogenetic outcomes, and procedure-related complications within 14 days were extracted from hospital records. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise baseline characteristics and outcomes. Associations were analysed using Fisher's exact test, and binary logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of miscarriage and PPROM.

Results: A total of 650 amniocentesis were included. Most women were <35 years (34.8%) or 38-40 years (31.1%); the majority were Malay (73.8%). Advanced maternal age was the leading indication (54.6%). Cytogenetic analysis revealed normal results in 90.9% of cases. Abnormal findings included trisomy 21 (1.7%), trisomy 18 (3.4%), trisomy 13 (0.8%), and other aneuploidies (3.1%), yielding an overall abnormal karyotype rate of 8.9%. Procedure-related complications were rare, with miscarriage in 0.3% (n=2) and PPROM in 0.6% (n=4). An abnormal karyotype was significantly associated with miscarriage and PPROM in univariate analysis (p<0.001) and remained an independent predictor of PPROM on logistic regression (OR=2.74, 95% CI=1.5-5.1, p=0.001). No independent predictors of miscarriage were identified.

Conclusions: Amniocentesis in this tertiary MFM training centre was associated with a high diagnostic yield and very low short-term complication rates, consistent with international benchmarks. The clustering of complications among abnormal karyotypes suggests that biological vulnerability contributes to adverse outcomes independent of procedural factors. These findings reinforce the safety of amniocentesis in the hands of experienced practitioners and provide important regional data for patient counselling and training.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Ghi T, Sotiriadis A, Calda P, Da Silva Costa F, Raine-Fenning N, Alfirevic Z. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: invasive procedures for prenatal diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48(2):256-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15945

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 162: Prenatal Diagnostic Testing for Genetic Disorders. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(5):108-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001405

Seeds JW. Diagnostic mid-trimester amniocentesis: how safe? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(2):607-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.05.078

Tabor A, Philip J, Madsen M, Bang J, Obel EB, Nørgaard-Pedersen B. Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet. 1986;1(8493):1287-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)91218-3

Chang YL, Chang SD, Chao AS, Wang CN, Cheng PJ. Thirty years of amniocentesis: a single-center experience in Taiwan. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;51(2):206-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2012.04.007

Serin S, Deniz C, Arikan I. Retrospective analysis of the results of amniocentesis Procedure at a university clinic. Perinatal J. 2013;21(2):47-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2399/prn.13.0212001

Wulff CB, Gerds TA, Rode L, Ekelund CK, Petersen OB, Tabor A. Risk of fetal loss associated with invasive testing following combined first-trimester screening: a national cohort of 147,987 singleton pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;47(1):38-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15820

Akolekar R, Beta J, Picciarelli G, Ogilvie C, D’Antonio F. Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45(1):16-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14636

Tabor A, Vestergaard CH, Lidegaard Ø. Fetal loss rate after chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis: an 11-year national registry study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(1):19-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6377

Pathompanitrat S, Choochuay P, Wannawat N. Second trimester genetic amniocentesis at a secondary center hospital in Southern Thailand. Thai J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;21(4):134-40.

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(3pt1)612-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000232512.46869.fc

Ercan Ö, Köstü B, Arslan G, Bakacak M, Özer A, Arıkan D. Does amniocentesis increase the rates of fetal loss and poor pregnancy outcomes? Ann J Clin Anal Med. 2016;7(2):197-200.

El-Din SM, Ismail NA, Ramy AR. Fetal chromosome abnormalities and congenital malformations: an Egyptian study. Egypt J Hum Genet. 2007;8(2):131-45.

Zhang Y, Zhang S, Yin M, Xu J, Lei C, Wu J. Cytogenetic analysis of fetal chromosomal abnormalities by amniocentesis: review of 40,000 consecutive cases in a single Chinese center. Reprod Dev Med. 2017;1(2):84- 9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/2096-2924.216865

Salomon LJ, Sotiriadis A, Wulff CB, Odibo A, Akolekar R. Risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling: systematic review and updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;54(4):442-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.20353

Firth HV, Boyd PA, Chamberlain P, MacKenzie IZ, Lindenbaum RH, Huson SM. Severe limb abnormalities after chorion villus sampling at 56-66 days' gestation. Lancet. 1991;337(8744):762-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(91)91374-4

Jummaat F, Ahmad S, Mohamed Ismail NA. Five-year review on amniocentesis and its maternal-fetal complications. Horm Mol Biol Clin Invest. 2019;40(2):1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/hmbci-2019-0006

Navaratnam K, Khairudin D, Chilton R, Sharp A, Attilakos G, Stott D, et al. Fetal loss after chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis in twin pregnancies: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Prenat Diagn. 2022;42(12):1554-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6237

Carlin AJ, Alfirevic Z. Techniques for chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis: a survey of practice in specialist UK centres. Prenat Diagn. 2008;28:914-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.2060

Simpson JL. Invasive procedures for prenatal diagnosis: any future left? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;26(5):625-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.05.007

Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, Ballif BC, Eng CM, et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(23):2175-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1203382