EP10.11: Prenatal invasive procedures before and after the introduction of NIPT

To compare the indications, the number and type of Prenatal Invasive Procedures (PINP) performed before and after the introduction of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT). We retrospectively collected data on all PINP performed at a single private prenatal diagnosis centre. Given that NIPT became widely available in 2018, we compared two groups: In group 1, we included all cases that were referred between 2008 and 2012, and in group 2 we included all cases referred between 2019 and 2023, when the price of invasive test matched the NIPT one. The maternal characteristics of the two groups were comparable (ethnicity, maternal age, gravity, parity, consanguinity). In group 1, 2.4% of cases were offered invasive procedures compared to 1% in group 2 (p < 0.01). The type of PINP was also significantly different: amniocentesis was significantly higher in group 1 (95.7% vs 67% p < 0.01) whereas chorionic villus sampling (CVS) was significantly lower (4.2% vs 33% p < 0.01). The indications for PINP are shown in pie charts 1 and 2. Advanced maternal age and abnormal triple marker test were both significantly lower in group 2 compared to group 1. Standard karyotype and PCR were more significantly requested in group 1 (204 vs 68), whereas targeted tests, microarray and whole exomes sequencing were more requested in group 2 (35 vs 7). The wide use of NIPT significantly changed all aspects of PINP. The overall number dropped, but the number of CVS increased. Despite the financial limitations, we have managed to improve awareness and incorporate NIPT in our management, and have changed our daily practice accordingly. We recommend centralization of PINP in specific centres for safety, technical and academic purposes. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Published
2024-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.28507
Primary Topic
Congenital Heart Disease Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

EP10.11: Prenatal invasive procedures before and after the introduction of NIPT

Malek Nassar, Hady El Hachem, Wael Abdallah
Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Congenital Heart Disease Studies
article

EP10.11: Prenatal invasive procedures before and after the introduction of NIPT

Malek Nassar, Hady El Hachem, Wael Abdallah
article en

Abstract

To compare the indications, the number and type of Prenatal Invasive Procedures (PINP) performed before and after the introduction of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT). We retrospectively collected data on all PINP performed at a single private prenatal diagnosis centre. Given that NIPT became widely available in 2018, we compared two groups: In group 1, we included all cases that were referred between 2008 and 2012, and in group 2 we included all cases referred between 2019 and 2023, when the price of invasive test matched the NIPT one. The maternal characteristics of the two groups were comparable (ethnicity, maternal age, gravity, parity, consanguinity). In group 1, 2.4% of cases were offered invasive procedures compared to 1% in group 2 (p < 0.01). The type of PINP was also significantly different: amniocentesis was significantly higher in group 1 (95.7% vs 67% p < 0.01) whereas chorionic villus sampling (CVS) was significantly lower (4.2% vs 33% p < 0.01). The indications for PINP are shown in pie charts 1 and 2. Advanced maternal age and abnormal triple marker test were both significantly lower in group 2 compared to group 1. Standard karyotype and PCR were more significantly requested in group 1 (204 vs 68), whereas targeted tests, microarray and whole exomes sequencing were more requested in group 2 (35 vs 7). The wide use of NIPT significantly changed all aspects of PINP. The overall number dropped, but the number of CVS increased. Despite the financial limitations, we have managed to improve awareness and incorporate NIPT in our management, and have changed our daily practice accordingly. We recommend centralization of PINP in specific centres for safety, technical and academic purposes. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and GynecologyVol. 64(S1)
Saint Joseph University (LB), Lebanese American University (LB)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 77%
Congenital Heart Disease Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.