Search

Twin gestations are associated with increased risk of pregnancy complications. However, high-quality evidence regarding the management of twin pregnancies is limited, often resulting in inconsistencies in the recommendations of various national and international professional societies. In addition, some recommendations related to the management of twin gestations are often missing from the clinical guidelines dedicated to twin pregnancies and are instead included in the practice guidelines on specific pregnancy complications (eg, preterm birth) of the same professional society. This can make it challenging for care providers to easily identify and compare recommendations for the management of twin pregnancies. This study aimed to identify, summarize, and compare the recommendations of selected professional societies from high-income countries on the management of twin pregnancies, highlighting areas of both consensus and controversy. We reviewed clinical practice guidelines of selected major professional societies that were either specific to twin pregnancies or were focused on pregnancy complications or aspects of antenatal care that may be relevant for twin pregnancies. We decided a priori to include clinical guidelines from 7 high-income countries (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Australia and New Zealand grouped together) and from 2 international societies (International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics). We identified recommendations regarding the following care areas: first-trimester care, antenatal surveillance, preterm birth and other pregnancy complications (preeclampsia, fetal growth restriction, and gestational diabetes mellitus), and timing and mode of delivery. We identified 28 guidelines published by 11 professional societies from the 7 countries and 2 international societies. Thirteen of these guidelines focus on twin pregnancies, whereas the other 16 focus on specific pregnancy complications predominantly in singletons but also include some recommendations for twin pregnancies. Most of the guidelines are recent, with 15 of the 29 guidelines published over the past 3 years. We identified considerable disagreement among guidelines, primarily in 4 key areas: screening and prevention of preterm birth, using aspirin to prevent preeclampsia, defining fetal growth restriction, and the timing of delivery. In addition, there is limited guidance on several important areas, including the implications of the "vanishing twin" phenomenon, technical aspects and risks of invasive procedures, nutrition and weight gain, physical and sexual activity, the optimal growth chart to be used in twin pregnancies, the diagnosis and management of gestational diabetes mellitus, and intrapartum care.This consolidation of key recommendations across several clinical practice guidelines can assist healthcare providers in accessing and comparing recommendations on the management of twin pregnancies and identifies high-priority areas for future research based on either continued disagreement among societies or limited current evidence to guide care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objective: To determine whether members of the AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery Worldwide (AAGL) and members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Collaborative Ambulatory Research Network (ACOG CARN) have changed their clinical practice based on the 2014 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warnings against power morcellation.Design: A survey study.Setting: Participants were invited to complete this online survey (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).Patients: AAGL and ACOG CARN members.Interventions: An online anonymous survey with 24 questions regarding demographics and changes to clinical practice during minimally invasive myomectomies and hysterectomies based on the 2014 FDA warnings against power morcellation.Measurements and Main Results: A total of 615 AAGL members and 54 ACOG CARN members responded (response rates of 8.2% and 60%, respectively). Before the FDA warnings, 85.8% and 86.9%, respectively, were using power morcellation during myomectomies and hysterectomies. After the FDA warnings, 71.1% and 75.8% of respondents reported stopping the use of power morcellation during myomectomies and hysterectomies. The most common reasons cited for discontinuing the use of power morcellation or using it less often were hospital mandate (45.6%), the concern for legal consequences (16.1%), and the April 2014 FDA warning (13.9%). Nearly half of the respondents (45.6%) reported an increase in their rate of laparotomy. Most (80.3%) believed that the 2014 FDA warnings have not led to an improvement in patient outcomes and have led to harming patients (55.1%).Conclusion: AAGL and ACOG CARN respondents reported decreased use of power morcellation during minimally invasive gynecologic surgery after the 2014 FDA warnings, the most common reason cited being hospital mandate. Rates of laparotomy have increased. Most members surveyed believe that the FDA warnings have not improved patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of the study was to compare national guidelines regarding small for gestational age (SGA). Study Design: Along with American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) practice bulletin on abnormal growth, guidelines from England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were reviewed. Results: There are no guidelines on SGA from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) guideline agrees with ACOG''s definition of abnormal growth, but there are noticeable variances in the diagnosis and management of SGA. RCOG has more recommendations than ACOG (18 vs 4, respectively). The articles referenced varied, with only 13 similar articles being cited by the both committees. Conclusion: The differences in the 2 guidelines suggest that there is variance in how 2 committees synthesize the literature and issue recommendations. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]