Search

Background: Assessing the umbilical artery pulsatility index via Doppler measurements plays a crucial role in evaluating fetal growth impairment., Objective: This study aimed to investigate perinatal outcomes associated with discordant pulsatility indices of umbilical arteries in fetuses with growth restriction., Study Design: In this retrospective cohort study, all singleton pregnancies were included if their estimated fetal weight and/or abdominal circumference fell below the 10th percentile for gestational age (2017-2022). Eligible cases included singleton pregnancies with concurrent sampling of both umbilical arteries within 14 days of birth at the ultrasound evaluation closest to delivery. The exclusion criteria included births before 22 weeks of gestation, evidence of absent or reverse end-diastolic flow in either umbilical artery, and known fetal genetic or structural anomalies. The study compared cases with discordant umbilical artery pulsatility index values (defined as 1 umbilical artery pulsatility index at ≤95th percentile and the other umbilical artery pulsatility index at >95th percentile for gestational age) to pregnancies where both umbilical artery pulsatility indices had normal pulsatility index values and those with both umbilical arteries displaying abnormal pulsatility index values. The primary outcome assessed was the occurrence of composite adverse neonatal outcomes. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed, adjusting for relevant covariates., Results: The study encompassed 1014 patients, including 194 patients (19.1%) with discordant umbilical artery pulsatility index values among those who had both umbilical arteries sampled close to delivery, 671 patients (66.2%) with both umbilical arteries having normal pulsatility index values, and 149 patients (14.7%) with both umbilical arteries exhibiting abnormal values. Pregnancies with discordant umbilical artery pulsatility index values displayed compromised sonographic parameters compared with those with both umbilical arteries showing normal pulsatility index values. Similarly, the number of abnormal umbilical artery pulsatility index values was associated with adverse perinatal outcomes in a dose-response manner. Cases with 1 abnormal (discordant) umbilical artery pulsatility index value showed favorable sonographic parameters and perinatal outcomes compared with cases with both abnormal umbilical artery pulsatility index values, and cases with both abnormal umbilical artery pulsatility index values showed worse sonographic parameters and perinatal outcomes compared with cases with discordant UA PI values. Multivariate analysis revealed that discordant umbilical artery pulsatility indices were significantly and independently associated with composite adverse perinatal outcomes, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.75 (95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.47; P = .002)., Conclusion: Evaluating the resistance indices of both umbilical arteries may provide useful data and assist in assessing adverse perinatal outcomes among fetuses with growth restriction., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Data on the optimal gestational weight gain in twin pregnancies are limited. As a result, the Institute of Medicine currently provides only provisional recommendations on gestational weight gain in this population., Objective: This study aimed to identify the optimal range of gestational weight gain in twin pregnancies and to estimate the association between inappropriate gestational weight gain and adverse pregnancy outcomes., Study Design: This was a retrospective cohort study of all women with twin pregnancies that were followed up in a single, tertiary center between 2000 and 2014. We used 2 approaches to identify the optimal range of gestational weight gain: a statistical approach (the interquartile range of gestational weight gain in low-risk pregnancies with normal outcomes) and an outcome-based approach (by identifying thresholds of gestational weight gain below or above which the rate of adverse outcomes increases). The primary outcome was preterm birth. Associations of gestational weight gain below or above the normal range with the study outcomes were estimated using logistic regression analysis and were expressed as adjusted odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals. These associations were stratified by prepregnancy body mass index group., Results: A total of 1274 women with twin pregnancies met the study criteria: 43 were classified as underweight, 777 were normal weight, 278 were overweight, and 176 were obese. Our estimates of the optimal gestational weight gain range were similar to those recommended by the Institute of Medicine except for the obese category, in which our optimal gestational weight gain range at 37 weeks (9.3-16.3 kg) was lower than in the provisional Institute of Medicine recommendations (11.3-19.1 kg). Nearly half of our cohort experienced inappropriate gestational weight gain: 30% (n=381) gained weight below and 17% (n=216) gained weight above current Institute of Medicine recommendations. In the normal weight group, gestational weight gain below recommendations was associated with an increased risk of preterm birth and birthweight at the <10th centile and with a reduction in the risk of hypertensive disorders, whereas gestational weight gain above recommendations was associated with an increased risk of hypertensive disorders and a reduction in the risk of birthweight at the <10th centile. Associations were less consistent in the overweight and obese groups., Conclusion: These findings identify gestational weight gain as a potentially modifiable risk factor for preterm birth and other pregnancy complications in twin gestations. Further prospective studies are needed to determine whether interventions aimed at optimizing gestational weight gain can improve the outcomes of these high-risk pregnancies., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The current literature regarding the recommended mode of delivery of monochorionic-diamniotic twins is limited to small numbers, retrospective studies, and comparisons of outcomes of monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies with those of dichorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies instead of outcomes of trial of labor vs elective cesarean delivery of monochorionic-diamniotic twins., Objective: This study aimed to compare perinatal and maternal outcomes of planned cesarean delivery and planned vaginal delivery of monochorionic-diamniotic twins using the Twin Birth Study data., Study Design: This study is a secondary analysis of the Twin Birth Study. Women were randomized from 32 weeks and 0 days gestation to 38 weeks and 6 days gestation to planned cesarean delivery or planned vaginal delivery. Twin A in the cephalic presentation and estimated weight of each twin between 1500 and 4000 grams were the inclusion criteria. Pregnancies complicated by fetal reduction after 13 weeks of gestation, lethal fetal anomaly, or contraindication to vaginal delivery were excluded. Elective delivery was planned between 37 weeks and 5 to 7 days of gestation and 38 weeks and 6 to 7 days of gestation. Perinatal and maternal outcomes of monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies were compared between those randomized for planned cesarean delivery and those randomized for planned vaginal delivery. In addition, outcomes of monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies were compared with those of dichorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies., Results: Out of the 1393 women in each arm, 346 (24.9%) women in the planned cesarean delivery arm and 324 (23.3%) women in the planned vaginal delivery arm had monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies and were eligible for the first analysis. The rate of cesarean delivery was 39.2% in the planned vaginal delivery arm and was 91.3% in the planned cesarean delivery arm. There was no significant difference in gestational age at delivery between the groups (34.4±1.8 weeks vs 34.5±1.8 weeks; P=.78). No difference was found in maternal outcomes. As for perinatal outcomes, the rate of the primary adverse neonatal composite outcomes in twins A or twins B was similar in both the planned vaginal delivery and the planned cesarean delivery arms (twins A, 1.2% vs 1.2% [P=.92]; twins B, 1.2% vs 3.2% [P=.09]). Within the planned cesarean delivery arm, the rate of primary adverse neonatal composite outcome was higher in twins B than twins A (3.2% vs 1.2%; P=.03). There was no difference in the primary adverse neonatal composite outcome between twins A in the monochorionic-diamniotic group and the dichorionic-diamniotic group (1.2% vs 1.3%; P=.89) or between twins B in similar groups (2.3% vs 2.7%; P=.47)., Conclusion: In monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancy between 32 weeks and 0 to 7 days of gestation and 38 weeks and 6 to 7 days of gestation, with twin A in a cephalic presentation, planned cesarean delivery did not decrease or increase the risk of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity, as compared with planned vaginal delivery., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The reported incidence of combined twin delivery (vaginal delivery of twin A followed by cesarean delivery for twin B) ranges between 5% and 10%. These estimates are based mostly on small studies or retrospective data. We aimed to evaluate to incidence and risk factors for and outcomes of combined twin deliveries, using a subanalysis of the Twin Birth Study, a randomized, controlled, prospective study., Study Design: The Twin Birth Study included women with twin gestation between 32+0 and 38+6 weeks, with the first twin in vertex presentation at randomization. Women were randomized to planned cesarean delivery or planned vaginal delivery. For the purpose of this subanalysis, we included women who had a vaginal delivery of twin A. Women who had a combined delivery (cesarean delivery for twin B) were compared with women who had a vaginal delivery of both twins. Our primary objective was to identify risk factors for combined twin deliveries. Our secondary objective was to assess the rate of fetal/neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity in combined deliveries., Results: Of the 2786 women included in the original study, 842 women delivered twin A by a vaginal delivery and were included in the current analysis, of whom 59 (7%) had a combined delivery. Women in the combined delivery group had a lower rate of nulliparity (22.0% vs 34.7%, P = 0.047) and higher rates of noncephalic presentation of twin B at delivery (61.0% vs 27.3%, P < 0.001) and spontaneous version from presentation at randomization of twin B (72.9% vs 44.3%, P < 0.0001). In a multivariable model, the only risk factor significantly associated with a combined delivery was transverse/oblique lie of twin B following delivery of twin A (adjusted odds ratio, 47.7; 95% confidence interval, 15.4-124.5). Twins B in the combined delivery group had a higher rate of fetal/neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity (13.6% vs 2.3%, P < 0.001), 5-minute Apgar score <7, neonatal intensive care unit admission, abnormal level of consciousness, and assisted ventilation., Conclusion: Transverse/oblique lie of twin B following vaginal delivery of twin A is a risk factor for combined delivery. Combined delivery is associated with higher risk of adverse neonatal outcomes of twin B. These data may be used to better counsel women with twin gestation who consider a trial of labor., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)