Prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis in a large Chinese cohort of fetuses with congenital heart defects: a single center study.
Chromosomal abnormalities
Chromosomal microarray analysis
Congenital heart defects
Copy number variations
Prenatal diagnosis
Journal
Orphanet journal of rare diseases
ISSN: 1750-1172
Titre abrégé: Orphanet J Rare Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101266602
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Aug 2024
22 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
23
06
2023
accepted:
08
08
2024
medline:
23
8
2024
pubmed:
23
8
2024
entrez:
22
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Congenital heart defect (CHD) is one of the most common birth defects. The aim of this cohort study was to evaluate the prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities and the clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in fetuses with different types of CHD, aiming to assist genetic counseling and clinical decision-making. In this study, 642 fetuses with CHD were enrolled from a single center over a six-year period (2017-2022). Both conventional karyotyping and CMA were performed simultaneously on these fetuses. The diagnostic yield of CMA in fetuses with CHD in our study was 15.3% (98/642). Our findings revealed a significant increase in the diagnostic yield of CMA compared to karyotyping in fetuses with CHD. Among CHD subgroups, the diagnostic yields were high in complex CHD (34.9%), conotruncal defects (28.6%), right ventricular outflow tract obstructive defects (RVOTO) (25.9%), atrioventricular septal defects (AVSD) (25.0%) and left ventricular outflow tract obstructive defects (LVOTO) (24.1%), while those in other CHD (10.6%) and septal defects (10.9%) were relatively low. The overall detection rate of clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities was significantly higher in the non-isolated CHD group compared to the isolated CHD group (33.1% vs. 9.9%, P < 0.0001). Interestingly, numerical chromosomal abnormalities were more likely to occur in the non-isolated CHD group than in the isolated CHD group (20.3% vs. 2.0%, P < 0.0001). The rate of termination of pregnancy (TOP)/Still birth in the non-isolated CHD group was significantly higher than that in the isolated CHD group (40.5% vs. 20.6%, P < 0.0001). Compared to the isolated CHD group, the detection rate of clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities was significantly higher in the group of CHD with soft markers (35.6% vs. 9.9%, P < 0.0001) and in the group of CHD with additional structural anomalies (36.1% vs. 9.9%, P < 0.0001). CMA is a reliable and high-resolution technique that should be recommended as the front-line test for prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with CHD. The prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities varies greatly among different subgroups of CHD, and special attention should be given to prenatal non-isolated cases of CHD, especially those accompanied by additional structural anomalies or soft markers.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Congenital heart defect (CHD) is one of the most common birth defects. The aim of this cohort study was to evaluate the prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities and the clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in fetuses with different types of CHD, aiming to assist genetic counseling and clinical decision-making.
METHODS
METHODS
In this study, 642 fetuses with CHD were enrolled from a single center over a six-year period (2017-2022). Both conventional karyotyping and CMA were performed simultaneously on these fetuses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The diagnostic yield of CMA in fetuses with CHD in our study was 15.3% (98/642). Our findings revealed a significant increase in the diagnostic yield of CMA compared to karyotyping in fetuses with CHD. Among CHD subgroups, the diagnostic yields were high in complex CHD (34.9%), conotruncal defects (28.6%), right ventricular outflow tract obstructive defects (RVOTO) (25.9%), atrioventricular septal defects (AVSD) (25.0%) and left ventricular outflow tract obstructive defects (LVOTO) (24.1%), while those in other CHD (10.6%) and septal defects (10.9%) were relatively low. The overall detection rate of clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities was significantly higher in the non-isolated CHD group compared to the isolated CHD group (33.1% vs. 9.9%, P < 0.0001). Interestingly, numerical chromosomal abnormalities were more likely to occur in the non-isolated CHD group than in the isolated CHD group (20.3% vs. 2.0%, P < 0.0001). The rate of termination of pregnancy (TOP)/Still birth in the non-isolated CHD group was significantly higher than that in the isolated CHD group (40.5% vs. 20.6%, P < 0.0001). Compared to the isolated CHD group, the detection rate of clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities was significantly higher in the group of CHD with soft markers (35.6% vs. 9.9%, P < 0.0001) and in the group of CHD with additional structural anomalies (36.1% vs. 9.9%, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
CMA is a reliable and high-resolution technique that should be recommended as the front-line test for prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with CHD. The prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities varies greatly among different subgroups of CHD, and special attention should be given to prenatal non-isolated cases of CHD, especially those accompanied by additional structural anomalies or soft markers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39175064
doi: 10.1186/s13023-024-03317-4
pii: 10.1186/s13023-024-03317-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
307Subventions
Organisme : Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Birth Defect for Prevention and Control
ID : 2024SSY06201
Organisme : Jiangxi Provincial Clinical Research Center for Birth Defects
ID : 20223BCG74002
Organisme : Jiangxi Province Key Research and Development Project
ID : 20232BBG70023
Organisme : Provincial Health Commission Program of Jiangxi
ID : 202410428
Organisme : Provincial Health Commission Program of Jiangxi
ID : 202210062
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
van der Linde D, Konings EEM, Slager MA, Witsenburg M, Helbing WA, Takkenberg JJM, et al. Birth prevalence of congenital heart disease worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:2241–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.025
pubmed: 22078432
Fahed AC, Gelb BD, Seidman JG, Seidman CE. Genetics of congenital heart disease: the glass half empty. Circ Res. 2013;112:707–20.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.112.300853
pubmed: 23410880
Pei L, Kang Y, Zhao Y, Yan H. Prevalence and risk factors of congenital heart defects among live births: a population-based cross-sectional survey in Shaanxi province, Northwestern China. BMC Pediatr. 2017;17:18.
doi: 10.1186/s12887-017-0784-1
pubmed: 28086762
pmcid: 5237335
Zaidi S, Brueckner M. Genetics and Genomics of congenital heart disease. Circ Res. 2017;120:923–40.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.309140
pubmed: 28302740
pmcid: 5557504
Blue GM, Kirk EP, Sholler GF, Harvey RP, Winlaw DS. Congenital heart disease: current knowledge about causes and inheritance. Med J Aust. 2012;197:155–9.
doi: 10.5694/mja12.10811
pubmed: 22860792
Pierpont ME, Basson CT, Benson DW, Gelb BD, Giglia TM, Goldmuntz E, et al. Genetic basis for congenital heart defects: current knowledge: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Congenital Cardiac Defects Committee, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young: endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Circulation. 2007;115:3015–38.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.183056
pubmed: 17519398
Lalani SR, Belmont JW. Genetic basis of congenital cardiovascular malformations. Eur J Med Genet. 2014;57:402–13.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2014.04.010
pubmed: 24793338
pmcid: 4152939
Yan Y, Wu Q, Zhang L, Wang X, Dan S, Deng D, et al. Detection of submicroscopic chromosomal aberrations by array-based comparative genomic hybridization in fetuses with congenital heart disease. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43:404–12.
doi: 10.1002/uog.13236
pubmed: 24323407
Luo S, Meng D, Li Q, Hu X, Chen Y, He C, et al. Genetic testing and pregnancy outcome analysis of 362 fetuses with congenital heart Disease identified by prenatal Ultrasound. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2018;111:571–7.
pubmed: 30133550
pmcid: 6199505
Hartman RJ, Rasmussen SA, Botto LD, Riehle-Colarusso T, Martin CL, Cragan JD, et al. The contribution of chromosomal abnormalities to congenital heart defects: a population-based study. Pediatr Cardiol. 2011;32:1147–57.
doi: 10.1007/s00246-011-0034-5
pubmed: 21728077
Simmons MA, Brueckner M. The genetics of congenital heart disease… understanding and improving long-term outcomes in congenital heart disease: a review for the general cardiologist and primary care physician. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2017;29:520–8.
doi: 10.1097/MOP.0000000000000538
pubmed: 28872494
pmcid: 5665656
van Nisselrooij AEL, Lugthart MA, Clur S-A, Linskens IH, Pajkrt E, Rammeloo LA, et al. The prevalence of genetic diagnoses in fetuses with severe congenital heart defects. Genet Med. 2020;22:1206–14.
doi: 10.1038/s41436-020-0791-8
pubmed: 32341573
pmcid: 7332415
Russell MW, Chung WK, Kaltman JR, Miller TA. Advances in the understanding of the genetic determinants of congenital heart Disease and their impact on clinical outcomes. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7:e006906.
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.117.006906
pubmed: 29523523
pmcid: 5907537
Botto LD, Lin AE, Riehle-Colarusso T, Malik S, Correa A, National Birth Defects Prevention Study. Seeking causes: classifying and evaluating congenital heart defects in etiologic studies. Birth Defects Res Clin Mol Teratol. 2007;79:714–27.
doi: 10.1002/bdra.20403
Zhang R, Chen S, Han P, Chen F, Kuang S, Meng Z, et al. Whole exome sequencing identified a homozygous novel variant in CEP290 gene causes Meckel syndrome. J Cell Mol Med. 2020;24:1906–16.
doi: 10.1111/jcmm.14887
pubmed: 31840411
Wang Y, Cao L, Liang D, Meng L, Wu Y, Qiao F, et al. Prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis in fetuses with congenital heart disease: a prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218:e2441–24417.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.10.225
Salzer-Sheelo L, Polak U, Barg A, Kahana S, Yacobson S, Agmon-Fishman I, et al. Prenatal and postnatal chromosomal microarray analysis in 885 cases of various congenital heart defects. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022;306:1007–13.
doi: 10.1007/s00404-021-06366-3
pubmed: 35083553
Zhang Z, Hu T, Wang J, Hu R, Li Q, Xiao L, et al. Pregnancy outcomes of fetuses with congenital heart disease after a prenatal diagnosis with chromosome microarray. Prenat Diagn. 2022;42:79–86.
doi: 10.1002/pd.6078
pubmed: 34918366
Lu F, Xue P, Zhang B, Wang J, Yu B, Liu J. Estimating the frequency of causal genetic variants in foetuses with congenital heart defects: a Chinese cohort study. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2022;17:2.
doi: 10.1186/s13023-021-02167-8
pubmed: 34983622
pmcid: 8729135
Zhu X, Li J, Ru T, Wang Y, Xu Y, Yang Y, et al. Identification of copy number variations associated with congenital heart disease by chromosomal microarray analysis and next-generation sequencing. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36:321–7.
doi: 10.1002/pd.4782
pubmed: 26833920
Qiao F, Wang Y, Zhang C, Zhou R, Wu Y, Wang C, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of genetic variants using chromosomal microarray analysis and exome sequencing in fetuses with congenital heart defect. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021;58:377–87.
doi: 10.1002/uog.23532
pubmed: 33142350
Mademont-Soler I, Morales C, Soler A, Martínez-Crespo JM, Shen Y, Margarit E, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities in fetuses with abnormal cardiac ultrasound findings: evaluation of chromosomal microarray-based analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:375–82.
doi: 10.1002/uog.12372
pubmed: 23233332
Wilde AAM, Semsarian C, Márquez MF, Sepehri Shamloo A, Ackerman MJ, Ashley EA, et al. European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)/Heart Rhythm Society (HRS)/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS)/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS) Expert Consensus Statement on the state of genetic testing for Cardiac diseases. Heart Rhythm. 2022;19:e1–60.
doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.03.1225
pubmed: 35390533
Li P, Chen W, Li M, Zhao Z, Feng Z, Gao H, et al. Copy number variant analysis for syndromic congenital heart disease in the Chinese population. Hum Genomics. 2022;16:51.
doi: 10.1186/s40246-022-00426-8
pubmed: 36316717
pmcid: 9623925
Ehrlich L, Prakash SK. Copy-number variation in congenital heart disease. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2022;77:101986.
doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2022.101986
pubmed: 36202051
Soemedi R, Wilson IJ, Bentham J, Darlay R, Töpf A, Zelenika D, et al. Contribution of global rare copy-number variants to the risk of sporadic congenital heart disease. Am J Hum Genet. 2012;91:489–501.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.08.003
pubmed: 22939634
pmcid: 3511986
Putotto C, Pugnaloni F, Unolt M, Maiolo S, Trezzi M, Digilio MC, et al. 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: impact of Genetics in the treatment of Conotruncal Heart defects. Child (Basel). 2022;9:772.
Gavril E-C, Popescu R, Nucă I, Ciobanu C-G, Butnariu LI, Rusu C, et al. Different types of deletions created by Low-Copy repeats sequences location in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: genotype-phenotype correlation. Genes (Basel). 2022;13:2083.
doi: 10.3390/genes13112083
pubmed: 36360320
Xue J, Shen R, Xie M, Liu Y, Zhang Y, Gong L, et al. 22q11.2 recurrent copy number variation-related syndrome: a retrospective analysis of our own microarray cohort and a systematic clinical overview of ClinGen curation. Transl Pediatr. 2021;10:3273–81.
doi: 10.21037/tp-21-560
pubmed: 35070841
pmcid: 8753460
Soemedi R, Topf A, Wilson IJ, Darlay R, Rahman T, Glen E, et al. Phenotype-specific effect of chromosome 1q21.1 rearrangements and GJA5 duplications in 2436 congenital heart disease patients and 6760 controls. Hum Mol Genet. 2012;21:1513–20.
doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddr589
pubmed: 22199024
Li F-F, Chen W-J, Yao D, Xu L, Shen J-Y, Zeng Y, et al. Clinical phenotypes study of 231 children with Williams syndrome in China: a single-center retrospective study. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2022;10:e2069.
doi: 10.1002/mgg3.2069
pubmed: 36168091
pmcid: 9747549
Wang Y, Zhou H, Fu F, Cheng K, Yu Q, Huang R, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of chromosome 16p11.2 Microdeletion. Genes (Basel). 2022;13:2315.
doi: 10.3390/genes13122315
pubmed: 36553582
Stoll C, Garne E, Clementi M, EUROSCAN Study Group. Evaluation of prenatal diagnosis of associated congenital heart diseases by fetal ultrasonographic examination in Europe. Prenat Diagn. 2001;21:243–52.
doi: 10.1002/pd.34
pubmed: 11288111
Maya I, Singer A, Yonath H, Reches A, Rienstein S, Zeligson S, et al. What have we learned from 691 prenatal chromosomal microarrays for ventricular septal defects? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99:757–64.
doi: 10.1111/aogs.13708
pubmed: 31424084
Vedel C, Rode L, Jørgensen FS, Petersen OB, Sundberg K, Tabor A, et al. Prenatally detected isolated ventricular septum defects and the association with chromosomal aberrations-A nationwide register-based study from Denmark. Prenat Diagn. 2021;41:347–53.
doi: 10.1002/pd.5853
pubmed: 33085118
Donnelly JC, Platt LD, Rebarber A, Zachary J, Grobman WA, Wapner RJ. Association of copy number variants with specific ultrasonographically detected fetal anomalies. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124:83–90.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000336
pubmed: 24901266
pmcid: 4111105
Hu T, Tian T, Zhang Z, Wang J, Hu R, Xiao L, et al. Prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis in 2466 fetuses with ultrasonographic soft markers: a prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224:e5161–51616.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.10.039
Pan L, Liang H, Meng Z, Wang J, Zhang R, Wu Y. Assessing the value of second-trimester nasal bone hypoplasia in predicting chromosomal abnormalities: a retrospective chromosomal microarray analysis of 351 fetuses. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022.
Xu X, Wang L, Cheng X, Ke W, Jie S, Lin S, et al. Machine learning-based evaluation of application value of the USM combined with NIPT in the diagnosis of fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Math Biosci Eng. 2022;19:4260–76.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022197
pubmed: 35341297
Ekin A, Gezer C, Taner CE, Ozeren M. The effect of associated structural malformations in the prediction of chromosomal abnormality risk of fetuses with echogenic bowel. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29:41–5.
doi: 10.3109/14767058.2014.986091
pubmed: 25385269