Page 63 - ESHRE2019

Study #2: From 2009 to 2015 (5,512 patients)
Array-CGH
iFISH
LTC SYSTEMATICALLY
STC RETROSPECTIVELY
(type 2 or 3 CPM, Ø type 1 CPM)
IN CASE OF SUSPICION OF CPM Amniocentesis ± uniparental disomy
❑ NT, PAPP-A, (ART)
❑ Pregnancy outcome (IUFD, prematurity, neonatal hypotrophy) ❑ Control population (93 patients)
36 CPM (36/5512=6.53‰): 13 type 2 & 23 type 3
P value
Type 2 CPM (n = 13)
P value
Type 3 CPM (n = 23)
Pregnancy characteristics
Maternal age (years) (mean ± sd)
Pregnancy obtained after ART (%)
Nuchal translucency (mm)
Control population (n = 93)
Type 2 and 3 CPM (n = 36)
34 ± 6 8.33
P value NS
NS
34 ± 6 5.38
5,5 5 4,5 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0
NS 35 ± 6 NS NS 7.69 NS
NS p<10
34 ± 6 8.70
Control (n=88)
Type 2 CPM (n=10) Type 3 CPM (n=22)
Trisomy 16
-2
Control
Type 2
Type 3 CPM
58
PRECONGRESS COURSE 10 I VIENNA, AUSTRIA – 23 JUNE 2019 61