Nanette Okun

Resistance exercise decreases the need for insulin in overweight women with gestational diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE This study examines the effects of circuit-type resistance training on the need for insulin in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. STUDY DESIGN Thirty-two patients with gestational diabetes mellitus were randomly assigned either to a group that was treated with diet alone or to a group that was treated with diet plus resistance exercise. RESULTS The number of women whose condition required insulin therapy was the same, regardless of treatment. However, a subgroup analysis that examined only overweight women (prepregnant body mass index, >25 kg/m(2)) showed a lower incidence of insulin use in the diet-plus-exercise group (P<.05). Women in the diet-plus-exercise group were prescribed less insulin (P<.05) and showed a longer delay from diagnosis to the initiation of insulin therapy (P<.05), compared with the diet-alone group. CONCLUSION Resistance exercise training may help to avoid insulin therapy for overweight women with gestational diabetes mellitus.

Delayed Child-Bearing

OBJECTIVE To provide an overview of delayed child-bearing and to describe the implications for women and health care providers. OPTIONS Delayed child-bearing, which has increased greatly in recent decades, is associated with an increased risk of infertility, pregnancy complications, and adverse pregnancy outcome. This guideline provides information that will optimize the counselling and care of Canadian women with respect to their reproductive choices. OUTCOMES Maternal age is the most important determinant of fertility, and obstetric and perinatal risks increase with maternal age. Many women are unaware of the success rates or limitations of assisted reproductive technology and of the increased medical risks of delayed child-bearing, including multiple births, preterm delivery, stillbirth, and Caesarean section. This guideline provides a framework to address these issues. EVIDENCE Studies published between 2000 and August 2010 were retrieved through searches of PubMed and the Cochrane Library using appropriate key words (delayed child-bearing, deferred pregnancy, maternal age, assisted reproductive technology, infertility, and multiple births) and MeSH terms (maternal age, reproductive behaviour, fertility). The Internet was also searched using similar key words, and national and international medical specialty societies were searched for clinical practice guidelines and position statements. Data were extracted based on the aims, sample, authors, year, and results. VALUES The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (Table 1). SPONSOR The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Women who delay child-bearing are at increased risk of infertility. Prospective parents, especially women, should know that their fecundity and fertility begin to decline significantly after 32 years of age. Prospective parents should know that assisted reproductive technologies cannot guarantee a live birth or completely compensate for age-related decline in fertility. (II-2A) 2. A fertility evaluation should be initiated after 6 months of unprotected intercourse without conception in women 35 to 37 years of age, and earlier in women > 37 years of age. (II-2A) 3. Prospective parents should be informed that semen quality and male fertility deteriorate with advancing age and that the risk of genetic disorders in offspring increases. (II-2A) 4. Women ≥ 35 years of age should be offered screening for fetal aneuploidy and undergo a detailed second trimester ultrasound examination to look for significant fetal birth defects (particularly cardiac defects). (II-1A) 5. Delayed child-bearing is associated with increased obstetrical and perinatal complications. Care providers need to be aware of these complications and adjust obstetrical management protocols to ensure optimal maternal and perinatal outcomes. (II-2A) 6. All adults of reproductive age should be aware of the obstetrical and perinatal risks of advanced maternal age so they can make informed decisions about the timing of child-bearing. (II-2A) 7. Strategies to improve informed decision-making by prospective parents should be designed, implemented, and evaluated. These strategies should provide opportunity for adults to understand the potential medical, social, and economic consequences of child-bearing throughout the reproductive years. (III-B) 8. Barriers to healthy reproduction, including workplace policies, should be reviewed to optimize the likelihood of healthy pregnancies. (III-C).

Crohn's disease, pregnancy, and birth weight

OBJECTIVE:Although there is general agreement that conception should be avoided when Crohns disease is active, many questions remain unanswered for the woman with Crohns disease in remission who becomes pregnant.METHODS:Sixty-five charts of women with Crohns disease quiescent at the start of pregnancy were identified between January 1993 and December 1997. Each pregnancy was matched to a healthy control pregnancy by date, age, parity, smoking status, and gestational age ± 1 wk, and comparisons were carried out using matched analyses.RESULTS:The two groups were similar in terms of maternal height, weight, and body mass index (BMI), in addition to the matched variables. The incidence of pregnancy complications was similar for most of the complications examined, whereas the incidence of poor maternal weight gain differed significantly between the groups (17/65 vs 2/65, p < 0.001). Flare-up of the Crohns disease was seen in 13/65 (20%) of pregnancies. The greatest differences in neonatal outcomes were in terms of birth weight (3150 ± 80 g vs 3500 ± 60 g) and birth weight percentile (36.7%± 3.6% vs 57.5%± 3.4%). Overall, there were 16 (24.6%) small for gestational age (SGA) births in the Crohns group, compared with only one (1.5%) in the control group (p = 0.0007). Multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors predictive of SGA births in the Crohns group. Ileal Crohns disease was a statistically significant predictor (p = 0.035), whereas previous bowel resection trended toward statistical significance (p = 0.065).CONCLUSIONS:In view of the risk of low birth weight, all women with Crohns disease who become pregnant should be followed carefully during the pregnancy, particularly those who have ileal disease or who have previously undergone bowel resection. Furthermore, smoking cessation needs to be aggressively pursued in these patients.

Prenatal Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy in Singleton Pregnancies

OBJECTIVE To develop a Canadian consensus document on maternal screening for fetal aneuploidy (e.g., Down syndrome and trisomy 18) in singleton pregnancies. OPTIONS Pregnancy screening for fetal aneuploidy started in the mid 1960s, using maternal age as the screening test. New developments in maternal serum and ultrasound screening have made it possible to offer all pregnant patients a non-invasive screening test to assess their risk of having a fetus with aneuploidy to determine whether invasive prenatal diagnostic testing is necessary. This document reviews the options available for non-invasive screening and makes recommendations for Canadian patients and health care workers. OUTCOMES To offer non-invasive screening for fetal aneuploidy (trisomy 13, 18, 21) to all pregnant women. Invasive prenatal diagnosis would be offered to women who screen above a set risk cut-off level on non-invasive screening or to pregnant women whose personal, obstetrical, or family history places them at increased risk. Currently available non-invasive screening options include maternal age combined with one of the following: (1) first trimester screening (nuchal translucency, maternal age, and maternal serum biochemical markers), (2) second trimester serum screening (maternal age and maternal serum biochemical markers), or (3) 2-step integrated screening, which includes first and second trimester serum screening with or without nuchal translucency (integrated prenatal screen, serum integrated prenatal screening, contingent, and sequential). These options are reviewed, and recommendations are made. EVIDENCE Studies published between 1982 and 2009 were retrieved through searches of PubMed or Medline and CINAHL and the Cochrane Library, using appropriate controlled vocabulary and key words (aneuploidy, Down syndrome, trisomy, prenatal screening, genetic health risk, genetic health surveillance, prenatal diagnosis). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and relevant observational studies. There were no language restrictions. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the guideline to August 2010. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology assessment-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies. The previous Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada guidelines regarding prenatal screening were also reviewed in developing this clinical practice guideline. VALUES The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS This guideline is intended to reduce the number of prenatal invasive procedures done when maternal age is the only indication. This will have the benefit of reducing the numbers of normal pregnancies lost because of complications of invasive procedures. Any screening test has an inherent false-positive rate, which may result in undue anxiety. It is not possible at this time to undertake a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the implementation of this guideline, since this would require health surveillance and research and health resources not presently available; however, these factors need to be evaluated in a prospective approach by provincial and territorial initiatives. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. All pregnant women in Canada, regardless of age, should be offered, through an informed counselling process, the option of a prenatal screening test for the most common clinically significant fetal aneuploidies in addition to a second trimester ultrasound for dating, assessment of fetal anatomy, and detection of multiples. (I-A) 2. Counselling must be non-directive and must respect a womans right to accept or decline any or all of the testing or options offered at any point in the process. (III-A) 3. Maternal age alone is a poor minimum standard for prenatal screening for aneuploidy, and it should not be used a basis for recommending invasive testing when non-invasive prenatal screening for aneuploidy is available. (II-2A) 4. Invasive prenatal diagnosis for cytogenetic analysis should not be performed without multiple marker screening results except for women who are at increased risk of fetal aneuploidy (a) because of ultrasound findings, (b) because the pregnancy was conceived by in vitro fertilization with intracytoplasmic sperm injection, or (c) because the woman or her partner has a history of a previous child or fetus with a chromosomal abnormality or is a carrier of a chromosome rearrangement that increases the risk of having a fetus with a chromosomal abnormality. (II-2E) 5. At minimum, any prenatal screen offered to Canadian women who present for care in the first trimester should have a detection rate of 75% with no more than a 3% false-positive rate. The performance of the screen should be substantiated by annual audit. (III-B) 6. The minimum standard for women presenting in the second trimester should be a screen that has a detection rate of 75% with no more than a 5% false-positive rate. The performance of the screen should be substantiated by annual audit. (III-B) 7. First trimester nuchal translucency should be interpreted for risk assessment only when measured by sonographers or sonologists trained and accredited for this service and when there is ongoing quality assurance (II-2A), and it should not be offered as a screen without biochemical markers in singleton pregnancies. (I-E) 8. Evaluation of the fetal nasal bone in the first trimester should not be incorporated as a screen unless it is performed by sonographers or sonologists trained and accredited for this service and there is ongoing quality assurance. (II-2E) 9. For women who undertake first trimester screening, second trimester serum alpha fetoprotein screening and/or ultrasound examination is recommended to screen for open neural tube defects. (II-1A) 10. Timely referral and access is critical for women and should be facilitated to ensure women are able to undergo the type of screening test they have chosen as first trimester screening. The first steps of integrated screening (with or without nuchal translucency), contingent, or sequential screening are performed in an early and relatively narrow time window. (II-1A) 11. Ultrasound dating should be performed if menstrual or conception dating is unreliable. For any abnormal serum screen calculated on the basis of menstrual dating, an ultrasound should be done to confirm gestational age. (II-1A) 12. The presence or absence of soft markers or anomalies in the 18- to 20-week ultrasound can be used to modify the a priori risk of aneuploidy established by age or prior screening. (II-2B) 13. Information such as gestational dating, maternal weight, ethnicity, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, and use of assisted reproduction technologies should be provided to the laboratory to improve accuracy of testing. (II-2A) 14. Health care providers should be aware of the screening modalities available in their province or territory. (III-B) 15. A reliable system needs to be in place ensuring timely reporting of results. (III-C) 16. Screening programs should be implemented with resources that support audited screening and diagnostic laboratory services, ultrasound, genetic counselling services, patient and health care provider education, and high quality diagnostic testing, as well as resources for administration, annual clinical audit, and data management. In addition, there must be the flexibility and funding to adjust the program to new technology and protocols. (II-3B).

Current Status in Non-Invasive Prenatal Detection of Down Syndrome, Trisomy 18, and Trisomy 13 Using Cell-Free DNA in Maternal Plasma

OBJECTIVE To provide a review of published studies on the use of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma for the non-invasive diagnosis of Down syndrome, trisomy 18, and trisomy 13. EVIDENCE PubMed was searched for articles published between 2006 and October 2012, using appropriate key words (e.g., non-invasive prenatal diagnosis, Down syndrome, cell-free fetal DNA, aneuploidy screening). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the guideline to October 31, 2012. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology assessment-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies. VALUES The studies reviewed were classified according to criteria described by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, and the recommendations for practice were ranked according to this classification (Table 1). Recommendations 1. Non-invasive prenatal testing using massive parallel sequencing of cell-free fetal DNA to test for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 should be an option available to women at increased risk in lieu of amniocentesis. Pretest counselling of these women should include a discussion of the limitations of non-invasive prenatal testing. (II-2A) 2. No irrevocable obstetrical decision should be made in pregnancies with a positive non-invasive prenatal testing result without confirmatory invasive diagnostic testing. (II-2A) 3. Although testing of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma appears very promising as a screening test for Down syndrome and other trisomies, studies in average-risk pregnancies and a significant reduction in the cost of the technology are needed before this can replace the current maternal screening approach using biochemical serum markers with or without fetal nuchal translucency ultrasound. (III-A).

Is maternal obesity a predictor of shoulder dystocia

OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between maternal obesity and shoulder dystocia while controlling for the potential confounding effects of other variables associated with obesity. METHODS: We performed a case‐control study of provincial delivery records audited by the Northern and Central Alberta Perinatal Outreach Program. Risk factors evaluated were selected based on previously published studies. Cases and controls were drawn from 45,877 live singleton cephalic vaginal deliveries weighing more than 2500 g between January 1995 and December 1997. There were 413 cases of shoulder dystocia (0.9% incidence). Controls (n = 845) were randomly chosen from the remainder of the target population to create a 1:2 case/control ratio. Univariate analysis with calculation of odds ratios (ORs) was used to determine which of the chosen risk factors were significantly related to the incidence of shoulder dystocia. Multivariable regression analyses were then used to determine the independently associated variables, and the adjusted ORs were obtained for each relevant risk factor. RESULTS: Maternal obesity was not significant as an independent risk factor for shoulder dystocia after adjusting for confounding variables (adjusted OR 0.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5, 1.6). Fetal macrosomia was the single most powerful predictor. The adjusted ORs were 39.5 (95% CI 19.1, 81.4) for birth weight greater than 4500 g and 9.0 (95% CI 6.5, 12.6) for birth weight between 4000 and 4499 g. CONCLUSION: The strongest predictors of shoulder dystocia are related to fetal macrosomia. For obese nondiabetic women carrying fetuses whose weights are estimated to be within normal limits, there is no increased risk of shoulder dystocia. (Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:24‐7.

Relative importance of maternal constitutional factors and glucose intolerance of pregnancy in the development of newborn macrosomia.

The purpose of this case-control study was to determine the relative importance of various predictors of newborn macrosomia, with particular reference to maternal constitutional factors and glucose intolerance of pregnancy. Macrosomia was defined by both absolute birthweight > or = 4,000 g and birthweight > or = 90th centile for gestational age. One thousand mother/newborn pairs [209 macrosomic (cases) and 791 non-macrosomic newborns (controls)] were recruited. Mothers with pre-gestational diabetes mellitus were excluded. Data on pregnancy and pregnancy variables were collected by review of prenatal, labour, and delivery and newborn assessment records and interview with the mother. Predictors that entered the stepwise multiple regression model in order of significance were: previous history of macrosomia, increasing maternal weight, nonsmoking status, multiparity, male newborn gender, gestational age of 40-42 weeks, North American Aboriginal ethnicity, maternal birthweight > 4,000 g, maternal height and maternal age < 17 years. Glucose screen positive/100-g oral glucose tolerance test (GTT) negative status was a significant predictor for macrosomia as defined by birthweight greater than the 90th percentile for gestational age, but not for absolute birthweight over 4,000 g. It was the least significant of all the factors examined. Treated gestational diabetes was not a significant predictor. By multivariate analysis, maternal constitutional factors are more powerful predictors of newborn macrosomia than maternal mild glucose intolerance. Treatment of mothers with GDM may be masking the effect of more pronounced carbohydrate intolerance.

Pregnancy Outcomes After Assisted Human Reproduction

OBJECTIVE To review the effect of assisted human reproduction (AHR) on perinatal outcomes, to identify areas requiring further research with regard to birth outcomes and AHR, and to provide guidelines to optimize obstetrical management and counselling of prospective Canadian parents. OUTCOMES This document compares perinatal outcomes of different types of AHR pregnancies with each other and with those of spontaneously conceived pregnancies. Clinicians will be better informed about the adverse outcomes that have been documented in association with AHR, including obstetrical complications, adverse perinatal outcomes, multiple gestations, structural congenital abnormalities, chromosomal abnormalities, and imprinting disorders. EVIDENCE Published literature was retrieved through searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library from January 2005 to December 2012 using appropriate controlled vocabulary and key words (assisted reproduction, assisted reproductive technology, ovulation induction, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, embryo transfer, and in vitro fertilization). Results were not restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies; studies of all designs published in English from January 2005 to December 2012 were reviewed, and additional publications were identified from the bibliographies of these articles. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the guideline to August 2013. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology assessment-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies. VALUES The quality of evidence in this document was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (Table 1). Summary Statements 1. There is increasing evidence that infertility or subfertility is an independent risk factor for obstetrical complications and adverse perinatal outcomes, even without the addition of assisted human reproduction. (II-2) 2. The relative risk for an imprinting phenotype such as Silver-Russell syndrome, Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, or Angelman syndrome is increased in the assisted reproduction population, but the actual risk for one of these phenotypes to occur in an assisted pregnancy is estimated to be low, at less than 1 in 5000. The exact biological etiology for this increased imprinting risk is likely heterogeneous and requires more research. (II-2) Recommendations 1. All men with severe oligozoospermia or azoospermia (sperm count < 5 million/hpf) should be offered genetic/clinical counselling, karyotype assessment for chromosomal abnormalities, and Y-chromosome microdeletion testing prior to in vitro fertilization with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. (II-2A) 2. All men with unexplained obstructive azoospermia should be offered genetic/clinical counselling and genetic testing for cystic fibrosis prior to in vitro fertilization with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. (II-2A) 3. Multiple pregnancy is the most powerful predictive factor for adverse maternal, obstetrical, and perinatal outcomes. Couples should be thoroughly counselled about the significant risks of multiple pregnancies associated with all assisted human reproductive treatments. (II-2A) 4. The benefits and cumulative pregnancy rates of elective single embryo transfer support a policy of using this protocol in couples with good prognosis for success, and elective single embryo transfer should be strongly encouraged in this population. (II-2A) 5. To reduce the incidence of multiple pregnancy, health care policies that support public funding for assisted human reproduction, with regulations promoting best practice regarding elective single embryo transfer, should be strongly encouraged. (II-2A) 6. Among singleton pregnancies, assisted reproductive technology is associated with increased risks of preterm birth and low birth weight infants, and ovulation induction is associated with an increased risk of low birth weight infants. Until sufficient research has clarified the independent roles of infertility and treatment for infertility, couples should be counselled about the risks associated with treatment. (II-2B) There is a role for closer obstetric surveillance of women who conceive with assisted human reproduction. (III-L) 7. There is growing evidence that pregnancy outcomes are better for cryopreserved embryos fertilized in vitro than for fresh embryo transfers. This finding supports a policy of elective single embryo transfer for women with a good prognosis (with subsequent use of cryopreserved embryos as necessary), and may reassure women who are considering in vitro fertilization. (II-2A) 8. Women and couples considering assisted human reproduction and concerned about perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies should be advised that (1) intracytoplasmic sperm injection does not appear to confer increased adverse perinatal or maternal risk over standard in vitro fertilization, and (2) the use of donor oocytes increases successful pregnancy rates in selected women, but even when accounting for maternal age, can increase the risks of low birth weight and preeclampsia. (II-2B) 9. Any assisted reproductive technology procedure should be prefaced by a discussion of fetal outcomes and the slight increase in the risk of congenital structural abnormalities, with emphasis on known confounding factors such as infertility and body mass index. (II-2B) 10. In pregnancies achieved by artificial reproductive technology, routine anatomic ultrasound for congenital structural abnormalities is recommended between 18 and 22 weeks. (II-2A) 11. Pregnancies conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection may be at increased risk of chromosomal aberrations, including sex chromosome abnormalities. Diagnostic testing should be offered after appropriate counselling. (II-2A) 12. The possible increased risk for late onset cancer due to gene dysregulation for tumour suppression requires more long-term follow-up before the true risk can be determined. (III-A) 13. The clinical application of preimplantation genetic testing in fertile couples must balance the benefits of avoiding disease transmission with the medical risks and financial burden of in vitro fertilization. (III-B) 14. Preimplantation screening for aneuploidy is associated with inconsistent findings for improving pregnancy outcomes. Any discussion of preimplantation genetic screening with patients should clarify that there is no adequate information on the long-term effect of embryo single cell biopsy. (I-C).

Technical Update: Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Screening

OBJECTIVE To update and review the techniques and indications of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). OPTIONS Discussion about the genetic and technical aspects of preimplantation reproductive techniques, particularly those using new cytogenetic technologies and embryo-stage biopsy. OUTCOMES Clinical outcomes of reproductive techniques following the use of PGD and PGS are included. This update does not discuss in detail the adverse outcomes that have been recorded in association with assisted reproductive technologies. EVIDENCE Published literature was retrieved through searches of The Cochrane Library and Medline in April 2014 using appropriate controlled vocabulary (aneuploidy, blastocyst/physiology, genetic diseases, preimplantation diagnosis/methods, fertilization in vitro) and key words (e.g., preimplantation genetic diagnosis, preimplantation genetic screening, comprehensive chromosome screening, aCGH, SNP microarray, qPCR, and embryo selection). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies published from 1990 to April 2014. There were no language restrictions. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the update to January 2015. Additional publications were identified from the bibliographies of retrieved articles. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies. VALUES The quality of evidence in this document was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. (Table 1) BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: This update will educate readers about new preimplantation genetic concepts, directions, and technologies. The major harms and costs identified are those of assisted reproductive technologies. SUMMARY Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is an alternative to prenatal diagnosis for the detection of genetic disorders in couples at risk of transmitting a genetic condition to their offspring. Preimplantation genetic screening is being proposed to improve the effectiveness of in vitro fertilization by screening for embryonic aneuploidy. Though FISH-based PGS showed adverse effects on IVF success, emerging evidence from new studies using comprehensive chromosome screening technology appears promising. Recommendations 1. Before preimplantation genetic diagnosis is performed, genetic counselling must be provided by a certified genetic counsellor to ensure that patients fully understand the risk of having an affected child, the impact of the disease on an affected child, and the benefits and limitations of all available options for preimplantation and prenatal diagnosis. (III-A) 2. Couples should be informed that preimplantation genetic diagnosis can reduce the risk of conceiving a child with a genetic abnormality carried by one or both parents if that abnormality can be identified with tests performed on a single cell or on multiple trophectoderm cells. (II-2B) 3. Invasive prenatal or postnatal testing to confirm the results of preimplantation genetic diagnosis is encouraged because the methods used for preimplantation genetic diagnosis have technical limitations that include the possibility of a false result. (II-2B) 4. Trophectoderm biopsy has no measurable impact on embryo development, as opposed to blastomere biopsy. Therefore, whenever possible, trophectoderm biopsy should be the method of choice in embryo biopsy and should be performed by experienced hands. (I-B) 5. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of single-gene disorders should ideally be performed with multiplex polymerase chain reaction coupled with trophectoderm biopsy whenever available. (II-2B) 6. The use of comprehensive chromosome screening technology coupled with trophectoderm biopsy in preimplantation genetic diagnosis in couples carrying chromosomal translocations is recommended because it is associated with favourable clinical outcomes. (II-2B) 7. Before preimplantation genetic screening is performed, thorough education and counselling must be provided by a certified genetic counsellor to ensure that patients fully understand the limitations of the technique, the risk of error, and the ongoing debate on whether preimplantation genetic screening is necessary to improve live birth rates with in vitro fertilization. (III-A) 8. Preimplantation genetic screening using fluorescence in situ hybridization technology on day-3 embryo biopsy is associated with decreased live birth rates and therefore should not be performed with in vitro fertilization. (I-E) 9. Preimplantation genetic screening using comprehensive chromosome screening technology on blastocyst biopsy, increases implantation rates and improves embryo selection in IVF cycles in patients with a good prognosis. (I-B).

Prenatal screening for and diagnosis of aneuploidy in twin pregnancies.

OBJECTIVE To provide a Canadian consensus document with recommendations on prenatal screening for and diagnosis of fetal aneuploidy (e.g., Down syndrome and trisomy 18) in twin pregnancies. OPTIONS The process of prenatal screening and diagnosis in twin pregnancies is complex. This document reviews the options available to pregnant women and the challenges specific to screening and diagnosis in a twin pregnancy. OUTCOMES Clinicians will be better informed about the accuracy of different screening options in twin pregnancies and about techniques of invasive prenatal diagnosis in twins. EVIDENCE PubMed and Cochrane Database were searched for relevant English and French language articles published between 1985 and 2010, using appropriate controlled vocabulary and key words (aneuploidy, Down syndrome, trisomy, prenatal screening, genetic health risk, genetic health surveillance, prenatal diagnosis, twin gestation). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and relevant observational studies. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the guideline to August 2010. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology assessment-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies. The previous Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada guidelines regarding prenatal screening were also reviewed in developing this clinical practice guideline. VALUES The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (Table 1). BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS There is a need for specific guidelines for prenatal screening and diagnosis in twins. These guidelines should assist health care providers in the approach to this aspect of prenatal care of women with twin pregnancies. SUMMARY STATEMENTS 1. Fetal nuchal translucency combined with maternal age is an acceptable first trimester screening test for aneuploidies in twin pregnancies. (II-2) 2. First trimester serum screening combined with nuchal translucency may be considered in twin pregnancies. It provides some improvement over the performance of screening by nuchal translucency and maternal age by decreasing the false-positive rate. (II-3) 3. Integrated screening with nuchal translucency plus first and second trimester serum screening is an option in twin pregnancies. Further prospective studies are required in this area, since it has not been validated in prospective studies in twins. (III) 4. Non-directive counselling is essential when invasive testing is offered. (III) 5. When chorionic villus sampling is performed in non-monochorionic multiple pregnancies, a combination of transabdominal and transcervical approaches or a transabdominal only approach appears to provide the best results to minimize the likelihood of sampling errors. (II-2) Recommendations 1. All pregnant women in Canada, regardless of age, should be offered, through an informed counselling process, the option of a prenatal screening test for the most common clinically significant fetal aneuploidies. In addition, they should be offered a second trimester ultrasound for dating, assessment of fetal anatomy, and detection of multiples. (I-A) 2. Counselling must be non-directive and must respect a womans right to accept or decline any or all of the testing or options offered at any point in the process. (III-A) 3. When non-invasive prenatal screening for aneuploidy is available, maternal age alone should not be an indication for invasive prenatal diagnosis in a twin pregnancy. (II-2A) If non-invasive prenatal screening is not available, invasive prenatal diagnosis in twins should be offered to women aged 35 and over. (II-2B) 4. Chorionicity has a major impact on the prenatal screening process and should be determined by ultrasound in the first trimester of all twin pregnancies. (II-2A) 5. When screening is done by nuchal translucency and maternal age, a pregnancy-specific risk should be calculated in monochorionic twins. In dichorionic twins, a fetus-specific risk should be calculated. (II-3C) 6. During amniocentesis, both amniotic sacs should be sampled in monochorionic twin pregnancies, unless monochorionicity is confirmed before 14 weeks and the fetuses appear concordant for growth and anatomy. (II-2B) 7. Prior to invasive testing or in the context of twins discordant for an abnormality, selective reduction should be discussed and made available to those requesting the procedure after appropriate counselling. (III-B) 8. Monitoring for disseminated intravascular coagulopathy is not indicated in dichorionic twin pregnancies undergoing selective reduction. (II-2B).