Opinions and practice patterns of obstetricians–gynecologists in the United States regarding amniocentesis in twins

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


ObjectiveAccurate amniocentesis-related pregnancy loss (ARL) rates for twin gestations remains elusive because of varying ARL definitions in the literature. We examined how OB/GYNs define/counsel women carrying twins about ARL.MethodsA random sample of 1000 American College of OB/GYN (ACOG) fellows and ACOG Collaborative Ambulatory Research Network (CARN) members were mailed surveys about their opinions/practice patterns regarding amniocentesis in twins. There were 208/400 (52%) CARN members and 166/600 (27%) ACOG fellows who returned the survey (37% response rate).ResultsOf respondents, 80.8% practiced general OB/GYN, and 9.1% practiced maternal fetal medicine. Of respondents, 72% discussed amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis. Of these, 91.7% discuss the risk of ARL; however, 47.4% do not quote an ARL rate. Of those who discuss ARL rates, 65% quote a rate greater than for singletons. Regarding monochorionic–diamniotic twins, 12.1% of respondents said the ARL rate was less, 39.6% said equal to, and 38.9% said greater than for dichorionic twins. Table 1 lists the most common clinical definitions/time intervals used to describe ARL.ConclusionVarious definitions/ARL rates are used when counseling about ARL in twins. Further studies using a widely accepted definition of ARL are necessary to improve the counseling of women considering amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis in twins. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    loading  Loading Related Articles