Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022
Genetic counseling decisions in gestational carrier pregnancies.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rasouli Melody A, Roberts Hailey E, Jackson David N
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Pregnancies conceived as contracted gestational carriers are a relatively new phenomenon for reproductive medicine. Since the intended parents control genetic screening decisions, there may be differences in genetic decisions made for gestational carrier (GC) in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies as compared to traditional non-gestational carrier IVF pregnancies. Our goal was to investigate the frequency and types of these genetic testing decisions.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of GC pregnancies counseled at a private maternal-fetal medicine practice between January 2006 and January 2021. Inclusion criteria were pregnancies that completed counseling with a certified genetic counselor and obtained high-resolution imaging. Controls were non-GC IVF pregnancies seen in the same period matched by parity, estimated delivery date (EDD), and the oocyte age utilized in conception. Statistical analysis included patient demographics, pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT-A) frequency and results, ultrasound imaging results, and the frequency with results of prenatal genetic screening (first or second-trimester serum screens), non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), or diagnostic testing (chorionic venous sampling (CVS) or amniocentesis).
RESULTS: One hundred and ninety one gestational carrier pregnancies were identified and 167 met inclusion criteria. Gestational carrier pregnancies were significantly more likely to pursue PGT-A, PGT-A with NIPT, first-trimester screening, and second-trimester screening. There were no differences in rates of amniocentesis or CVS over controls.
CONCLUSIONS: Regarding genetic counseling and screening options, our series is the first to demonstrate that gestational carrier parents seek additional genetic counseling resources, even with reassuring PGT-A and ultrasound.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of GC pregnancies counseled at a private maternal-fetal medicine practice between January 2006 and January 2021. Inclusion criteria were pregnancies that completed counseling with a certified genetic counselor and obtained high-resolution imaging. Controls were non-GC IVF pregnancies seen in the same period matched by parity, estimated delivery date (EDD), and the oocyte age utilized in conception. Statistical analysis included patient demographics, pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT-A) frequency and results, ultrasound imaging results, and the frequency with results of prenatal genetic screening (first or second-trimester serum screens), non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), or diagnostic testing (chorionic venous sampling (CVS) or amniocentesis).
RESULTS: One hundred and ninety one gestational carrier pregnancies were identified and 167 met inclusion criteria. Gestational carrier pregnancies were significantly more likely to pursue PGT-A, PGT-A with NIPT, first-trimester screening, and second-trimester screening. There were no differences in rates of amniocentesis or CVS over controls.
CONCLUSIONS: Regarding genetic counseling and screening options, our series is the first to demonstrate that gestational carrier parents seek additional genetic counseling resources, even with reassuring PGT-A and ultrasound.