The effect of polyhydramnios degree on chromosomal microarray results: a retrospective cohort analysis of 742 singleton pregnancies

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze the risk for clinically significant microarray aberrations in pregnancies with polyhydramnios.

Methods

Data from all chromosomal microarray analyses (CMA) performed due to polyhydramnios between January 2013 and December 2019 were retrospectively obtained from the Ministry of Health Database. The rate of clinically significant (pathogenic and likely pathogenic) CMA findings in isolated and non-isolated polyhydramnios cohorts was compared to a local control group of 5541 fetuses with normal ultrasound, in which 78 (1.4%) abnormal results were demonstrated. Subgroup analyses were performed by the degree of polyhydramnios, week of diagnosis, maternal age, and the presence of additional sonographic anomalies.

Results

In the isolated polyhydramnios cohort, 19/623 (3.1%) clinically significant CMA aberrations were noted, a significantly higher rate compared to the control population. However, the risk for abnormal CMA results in the 158 cases with mild polyhydramnios (AFI 25–29.9, or maximal vertical pocket 8–11.9 cm) did not significantly differ from pregnancies with normal ultrasound. Of 119 cases of non-isolated polyhydramnios (most frequently associated with cardiovascular (26.1%) and brain (15.1%) anomalies), 8 (6.7%) abnormal CMA findings were noted, mainly karyotype-detectable.

Conclusion

Mild polyhydramnios was not associated with an increased rate of clinically significant microarray results, compared to pregnancies with normal ultrasound. An extensive anatomical sonographic survey should be performed in pregnancies with polyhydramnios, with consideration of fetal echocardiography.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Abbreviations

AFI:

Amniotic fluid index

CMA:

Chromosomal microarray analysis

CI:

Confidence interval

CNVs:

Copy number variants

MVP:

Maximal vertical pocket

NOS:

Non-otherwise specified

SD:

Standard deviation

RR:

Relative risk

VOUS:

Variants of unknown significance

References

  1. 1.

    Magann EF, Chauhan SP, Doherty DA et al (2007) A review of idiopathic hydramnios and pregnancy outcomes. Obstet Gynecol Surv 62(12):795–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Shimada S, Yamada H, Hoshi N et al (2009) Specific ultrasound findings associated with fetal chromosome abnormalities. Congenit Anom 49(2):61–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Lee JF, Wang KK, Lan CC (1996) Risk of fetal chromosomal abnormalities in idiopathic polyhydramnios. Zhonghua yi xue za zhi = Chinese medical journal; Free China ed. 57(1):42–46.

  4. 4.

    Enzensberger C, Pulvermacher C, Degenhardt J et al (2012) Fetal loss rate and associated risk factors after amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling and fetal blood sampling. Ultraschall Med 33(7):E75–E79

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Biggio JR Jr, Wenstrom KD, Dubard MB, Cliver SP (1999) Hydramnios prediction of adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 94(5 Pt 1):773–777

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Barnhard Y, Bar-Hava I, Divon MY (1995) Is polyhydramnios in an ultrasonographically normal fetus an indication for genetic evaluation? Am J Obstet Gynecol 173(5):1523–1527

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Sagi-Dain L, Sagi S (2015) Chromosomal aberrations in idiopathic polyhydramnios: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Euro J Med Genet 58(8):409–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Practice Bulletin No.162 (2016) Prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders. Obstet Gynecol 127(5):e108–e122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Donnelly JC, Platt LD, Rebarber A et al (2014) Association of copy number variants with specific ultrasonographically detected fetal anomalies. Obstet Gynecol 124(1):83–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Allaf B, Dreux S, Schmitz T et al (2015) Amniotic fluid biochemistry in isolated polyhydramnios: a series of 464 cases. Prenat Diagn 35(13):1331–1335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Sagi-Dain L, Maya I, Reches A, et al. (2018) Chromosomal microarray analysis results from pregnancies with various ultrasonographic anomalies. Obstet Gynecol.

  12. 12.

    Sagi-Dain L, Singer A, Frumkin A, Shalata A, Koifman A, Segel R, et al. (2018) Chromosomal microarray findings in pregnancies with an isolated pelvic kidney. J Perinatal Med

  13. 13.

    Singer A, Maya I, Koifman A et al (2018) Microarray analysis in pregnancies with isolated echogenic bowel. Early Human Dev 119:25–28

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Dashe JS, McIntire DD, Ramus RM et al (2002) Hydramnios: anomaly prevalence and sonographic detection. Obstet Gynecol 100(1):134–139

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kouame N, N’Goan-Domoua AM, Nikiema Z et al (2013) Polyhydramnios: a warning sign in the prenatal ultrasound diagnosis of foetal malformation? Diagnostic Interventional Imaging 94(4):433–437

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Moore TR, Cayle JE (1990) The amniotic fluid index in normal human pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 162(5):1168–1173

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Maya I, Sharony R, Yacobson S, et al. (2017) When genotype is not predictive of phenotype: implications for genetic counseling based on 21,594 chromosomal microarray analysis examinations. Genet Med.

  18. 18.

    Fiorentino F, Caiazzo F, Napolitano S et al (2011) Introducing array comparative genomic hybridization into routine prenatal diagnosis practice: a prospective study on over 1000 consecutive clinical cases. Prenat Diagn 31(13):1270–1282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kearney HM, Thorland EC, Brown KK, et al. Working group of the American college of medical genetics laboratory quality assurance C. American college of medical genetics standards and guidelines for interpretation and reporting of postnatal constitutional copy number variants. Genet Med. 2011;13(7):680–685.

  20. 20.

    Sagi-Dain L, Cohen Vig L, Kahana S, et al. Chromosomal microarray vs. NIPS: analysis of 5541 low-risk pregnancies. Genetics Med. 2019.

  21. 21.

    Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B et al (2012) Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. New Engl J Med 367(23):2175–2184

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Malone FD, Canick JA, Ball RH et al (2005) First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down’s syndrome. New Engl J Med 353(19):2001–2011

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Luo QQ, Zou L, Gao H et al (2017) Idiopathic polyhydramnios at term and pregnancy outcomes: a multicenter observational study. The J Maternal-Fetal Neonatal Med 30(14):1755–1759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Kornacki J, Adamczyk M, Wirstlein P et al (2017) Polyhydramnios—frequency of congenital anomalies in relation to the value of the amniotic fluid index. Ginekol Pol 88(8):442–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Moise KJ Jr (2013) Toward consistent terminology: assessment and reporting of amniotic fluid volume. Semin Perinatol 37(5):370–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Pri-Paz S, Khalek N, Fuchs KM, Simpson LL (2012) Maximal amniotic fluid index as a prognostic factor in pregnancies complicated by polyhydramnios. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 39(6):648–653

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Kollmann M, Voetsch J, Koidl C et al (2014) Etiology and perinatal outcome of polyhydramnios. Ultraschall Med 35(4):350–356

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    McDonald-McGinn DM, Emanuel BS, Zackai EH. 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome. 1999 Sep 23 [Updated 2013 Feb 28]. In: Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Pagon RA, et al., editors. GeneReviews® [Internet]. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993–2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1523/

  29. 29.

    Maya I, Sharony R, Yacobson S et al (2018) When genotype is not predictive of phenotype: implications for genetic counseling based on 21,594 chromosomal microarray analysis examinations. Genet Med 20(1):128–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Fu F, Deng Q, Lei TY et al (2017) Clinical application of SNP array analysis in fetuses with ventricular septal defects and normal karyotypes. Arch Gynecol Obstet 296(5):929–940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Shanshen E, Rosenberg J, Van Bergen AH (2018) Identification of novel congenital heart disease candidate genes using chromosome microarray. Pediatr Cardiol 39(1):148–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Yefet E, Daniel-Spiegel E (2016) Outcomes from polyhydramnios with normal ultrasound. Pediatrics 137(2):e20151948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Low KJ, Stals K, Caswell R et al (2018) Phenotype of CNTNAP1: a study of patients demonstrating a specific severe congenital hypomyelinating neuropathy with survival beyond infancy. Euro J Hum Genet 26(6):796–807

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Deng L, Cheung SW, Schmitt ES et al (2018) Targeted gene panel sequencing prenatally detects two novel mutations of DYNC2H1 in a fetus with increased biparietal diameter and polyhydramnios. Birth Defects Res 110(4):364–371

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Komhoff M, Laghmani K (2018) MAGED2: a novel form of antenatal Bartter’s syndrome. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 27(4):323–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all Israeli genetic counselors and laboratory workers engaged in prenatal evaluation of fetal malformations, who made this study possible.

Funding

No financial support of funding was received for this work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lena Sagi-Dain.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests.

Ethical standards

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board Committee (Helsinki Committee) for Human Subjects (date of issue—September 6, 2016, registration number—MOH2016). No informed consent was required due to the retrospective nature of data acquisition.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOC 35 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sagi-Dain, L., Singer, A., Falik-Zaccai, T. et al. The effect of polyhydramnios degree on chromosomal microarray results: a retrospective cohort analysis of 742 singleton pregnancies. Arch Gynecol Obstet (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-05995-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Microarray
  • Polyhydramnios
  • Prenatal diagnosis
  • Ultrasound