Journals / Perinatoloji Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 1

The factors affecting amniocentesis decision by pregnant women in the risk group and the influence of consultant

Risk grubundaki gebelerin amniyosentez kararı almasındaki faktörler ve genetik danışmanın etkisi

Pages
6–13
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this study, we aimed to emphasize the significance on genetic consultation of knowing demographic distribution according to geographical characteristics of our country, and being aware that a population, which is diverse in terms of sociocultural aspects in particular due to the cosmopolite nature of metropolitan cities such as Istanbul, gets service.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The most frequent goal for prenatal diagnosis is to detect pregnancies with Down syndrome.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: One thousand pregnant women who were at second trimester, provided genetic consultation in a reference center offering Perinatology and Medical Genetics clinical services, who were candidate for chromosomal analysis, but only had increased risk in biochemical screening or due to advanced maternal age were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this study, we aimed to emphasize the significance on genetic consultation of knowing demographic distribution according to geographical characteristics of our country, and being aware that a population, which is diverse in terms of sociocultural aspects in particular due to the cosmopolite nature of metropolitan cities such as Istanbul, gets service.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The most frequent goal for prenatal diagnosis is to detect pregnancies with Down syndrome. Since karyotyping, which is the golden standard for the diagnosis, has not been replaced with a non-invasive method, pregnant women in the risk group should choose the method such as CVS and amniocentesis. Therefore, screening tests are performed by non-invasive method, and pregnant women under risk are provided genetic consultation and the family is expected to make a decision for invasive procedure. Methods: One thousand pregnant women who were at second trimester, provided genetic consultation in a reference center offering Perinatology and Medical Genetics clinical services, who were candidate for chromosomal analysis, but only had increased risk in biochemical screening or due to advanced maternal age were included in the study. The requests of partners, who were accompanying during genetic consultation, of the pregnant women who approved the procedure, invasive procedure decision and the factors affecting this decision were listed. Results: We observed that the pregnant women came for genetic consultation with an accompanying individual as the pregnant women felt that they were in a stressful environment when they came for genetic consultation. More than half of the pregnant women (52.1%) shared their decision right after genetic consultation. Almost two third of the pregnant women (63%) stated that they decided to undergo amniocentesis. The factors affecting this decision are the worthiness of pregnancy in terms of the family and potential risks of invasive procedure in general. Conclusion: Genetic consultation is one of the most important tools of patient-doctor relationship. It is very effective thanks to its informative nature especially for making a decision for invasive procedure in pregnant women and deciding for the progression of pregnancy upon invasive test results. In this study, we aimed to emphasize the significance on genetic consultation of knowing demographic distribution according to geographical characteristics of our country, and being aware that a population, which is diverse in terms of sociocultural aspects in particular due to the cosmopolite nature of metropolitan cities such as Istanbul, gets service.

Özet

Amaç: Do¤um öncesi tan›da günümüzde en s›k amaçlanan hedef Down sendromlu gebelikleri tespit etmektir. Tan›da alt›n standart yöntem olan karyotiplemenin yerini henüz non-invaziv bir yöntem dolduramad›¤›ndan, CVS, amniyosentez gibi bir yöntem için risk alt›ndaki gebelerin seçimi gereklidir. Bu amaçla giriflimsel olmayan yöntemlerle tarama testleri yap›lmakta, riskli gebelere genetik dan›flma verilerek invaziv giriflim karar› aileye b›rak›lmaktad›r. Yöntem: Perinataloji ve T›bbi Genetik klinik hizmetine sahip bir referans merkezde genetik dan›flma verilen, kromozom analizi aday›; ancak sadece ileri anne yafl› ya da biyokimyasal taramada artm›fl riski olan, 1000 adet ikinci üç ay gebesi çal›flmaya dahil edildi. Onay veren gebelerin genetik dan›flma ald›klar› s›rada not al›nan efllik eden birey iste¤i, invaziv giriflim karar›, bu karar› almas›nda etkili olan faktörler s›raland›. Bulgular: Gebelerin genetik dan›flma almaya geldiklerinde bir stres ortam›na giriyor hissine sahip olmalar› nedeniyle, efllik eden biriyle genetik dan›flma almay› tercih ettikleri görüldü. Gebelerin yar›s›ndan fazlas› (%52.1) genetik dan›flma ald›ktan sonra karar›- n› paylaflt›. Gebelerin neredeyse üçte ikisi (%63) amniyosentez yapt›rma karar› ald›¤›n› bildirdi. Bu karar› etkileyen faktörlerin da¤›l›m› da genel olarak gebeli¤in aile aç›s›ndan k›ymeti ve invaziv giriflimin olas› riskleri fleklinde s›ralanabilir. Sonuç: Genetik dan›flma t›bbi geneti¤in en önemli hasta hekim iliflkisi araçlar›ndan biridir. Özellikle gebelerde invaziv giriflim karar› almada ve invaziv test sonuçlar›yla birlikte gebeli¤in ilerlemesi konusunda karar vermede, bilgilendirici özelli¤i sayesinde çok etkili olmaktad›r. Bu çal›flmada ülkemizin co¤rafi özelliklere göre demografik da¤›l›m›n› bilmenin, ‹stanbul gibi büyük flehirlerde ise kozmopolit yap› nedeniyle, özellikle sosyokültürel aç›dan çeflitlilik arz eden bir nüfusun hizmet ald›¤›n›n fark›nda olman›n, genetik dan›flmadaki önemini vurgulamaya çal›flt›k.

🔖

Cite This Article

YARARBAŞ, K., KUŞKUCU, A. (2022). The factors affecting amniocentesis decision by pregnant women in the risk group and the influence of consultant. Perinatoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 1, 6–13. https://ajindex.com/articles/588344

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Yararbas K, Ilg›n-Ruhi H. Prenatal tan›. Türkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences 2006;26:666–74
  2. Rizos D. Prenatal screening for chromosomal abnormalities: where do we stand today in Mediterranean countries? The Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 2018;29:274–79
  3. Phadke SR, Puri RD, Ranganath P. Prenatal screening for genetic disorders: suggested guidelines for the Indian scenario. Indian J Med Res 2017;146:689–99
  4. Nshimyumukiza L, Menon S, Hina H, Rousseau F, Reinharz D. Cell-free DNA noninvasive prenatal screening for aneuploidy versus conventional screening: a systematic review of economic evaluations. Clin Genet 2018;94:3–21
  5. Stembalska A, Slezak R, Pesz K, Gil J, Sasiadek M. Prenatal diagnosis – principles of diagnostic procedures and genetic counseling. Folia Histochem Cytobiol 2007;45 Suppl 1:S11–6
  6. Vulic R, Culic V, Miskovic S, Gunjaca I, Roje D, Lasan R, et al. Prenatal diagnosis with genetic counseling in Uhc Split, Croatia. Int J Adv Res (Indore) 2017;5(3):1272–6
  7. Van den Hof MC, Wilson RD; Diagnostic Imaging Committee, Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada; Genetics Committee, Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Fetal soft markers in obstetric ultrasound. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2005;27:592–636
  8. Cloutier M, Gallagher L, Goldsmith C, Akiki S, Barrowman N, Morrison S. Group genetic counseling: an alternate service delivery model in a high risk prenatal screening population. Prenat Diagn 2017;37:1112–9
  9. Tsai GJ, Cameron CA, Czerwinski JL, Mendez-Figueroa H, Peterson SK, Noblin SJ. Attitudes towards prenatal genetic counseling, prenatal genetic testing, and termination of pregnancy among Southeast and East Asian women in the United States. J Genet Couns 2017;26:1041–58. 10. van der Steen SL, Houtman D, Bakkeren IM, Galjaard RJ, Polak MG, Busschbach JJ, et al. Offering a choice between NIPT and invasive PND in prenatal genetic counseling: the impact of clinician characteristics on patients’ test uptake. Eur J Hum Genet 2019;27:235–43
  10. Watanabe M, Matsuo M Ogawa M, Uchiyama T, Shimizu S, Iwasaki N, et al. Genetic counseling for couples seeking noninvasive prenatal testing in Japan: experiences of pregnant women and their partners. J Genet Couns 2017;26:628–39
  11. Sagaser KG, Shahrukh Hashmi S, Carter RD, Lemons J, Mendez-Figueroa H, Nassef S, et al. Spiritual exploration in the prenatal genetic counseling session. J Genet Couns 20