Back to Search Start Over

Diagnostic and perinatal outcomes in consanguineous couples with a structural fetal anomaly: A cohort study.

Authors :
Mone, Fionnuala
Doyle, Samantha
Ahmad, Asfa
Abu Subieh, Hala
Hamilton, Susan
Allen, Stephanie
Marton, Tamas
Williams, Denise
Kilby, Mark D.
Source :
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica; Mar2021, Vol. 100 Issue 3, p418-424, 7p
Publication Year :
2021

Abstract

<bold>Introduction: </bold>Consanguineous unions occur when a couple are related outside marriage and is associated with adverse genetic and perinatal outcomes for affected offspring. The objectives of this study were to evaluate: (i) background characteristics, (ii) uptake of prenatal and postnatal investigation and (iii) diagnostic outcomes of UK consanguineous couples presenting with a fetal structural anomaly.<bold>Material and Methods: </bold>This was a retrospective and partly prospective cohort study comparing consanguineous (n = 62) and non-consanguineous (n = 218) pregnancies with current or previous fetal structural anomalies reviewed in a UK prenatal genetic clinic from 2008 to 2019. Outcomes were compared using odds ratios (OR).<bold>Results: </bold>Most consanguineous couples were of Pakistani ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] 29, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 13-62) and required use of an interpreter [OR 9, 95% CI 4-20). In the consanguineous group, the uptake of prenatal invasive testing was lower (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.7) and the number declining follow up was greater (OR 10, 95% CI 3-34) than in the non-consanguineous group. This likely explained the lower proportion of consanguineous couples where a final definitive unifying diagnosis to explain the fetal structural anomalies was reached (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.6). When a diagnosis was obtained in this group, it was always postnatal and most often using genomic sequencing technologies (OR 6, 95% CI 1-27). The risk of perinatal death was greater (OR 3, 95% CI 1-6) in the consanguineous group, as was the risk of fetal structural anomaly recurrence in a subsequent pregnancy (OR 4, 95% CI 1-13). There was no difference in the uptake of perinatal autopsy or termination of pregnancy between groups.<bold>Conclusions: </bold>Consanguineous couples are a vulnerable group in the prenatal setting. Although adverse perinatal outcomes in this group are more common secondary to congenital anomalies, despite the evolution of genomic sequencing technologies, due to a lower uptake of prenatal testing it is less likely that a unifying diagnosis is obtained and recurrence can occur. There is a need for proactive genetic counseling and education from the multidisciplinary team, addressing language barriers as well as religious and cultural beliefs in an attempt to optimize reproductive options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
00016349
Volume :
100
Issue :
3
Database :
Complementary Index
Journal :
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
149375094
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14036