Search

Background: Data on the association of inappropriate gestational weight gain (GWG) and adverse outcomes in twin pregnancies are limited and inconsistent. Objectives: To perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis on the association between GWG and adverse outcomes in twin pregnancies. Search strategy: Ovid, Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Central databases from 1 January 1990 until 23 September 2020. Selection criteria: Interventional and observational studies evaluating the association between GWG and adverse outcomes in twin pregnancies. Data collection and analysis: Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Summary odds ratios (OR) were calculated using a random‐effects model in a subset of studies that analysed GWG as a categorical variable in relation to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations. The primary outcome was preterm birth. Main results: From 277 citations, 19 studies involving 36 023 women with twin pregnancies were included in the qualitative analysis, of which 14 were included in the meta‐analysis. Overall, 56.8% of women experienced inappropriate GWG: 35.4% (95% CI 30.0–41.0%) gained weight below and 21.4% (95% CI 14.2–29.5%) gained weight above IOM recommendations. Compared with GWG within IOM guidelines, GWG below IOM guidelines was associated with preterm birth before 32 weeks of gestation (OR 3.38; 95% CI 2.05–5.58), and a reduction in the risk of pre‐eclampsia (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.48–0.97). GWG above IOM guidelines was associated with an increased risk of pre‐eclampsia that was consistent across all body mass index categories. Conclusions: Inappropriate GWG affects over half of twin pregnancies, so is a common and potentially modifiable risk factor for preterm birth and pre‐eclampsia. Inappropriate gestational weight gain is a potentially modifiable risk factor for preterm birth & preeclampsia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare neonatal outcomes of women with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥35 kg/m2 who underwent a trial of labour with those of women who underwent a planned primary caesarean section (CS). Design: A retrospective cohort study of births between April 2012 and March 2014. Setting: A provincial database: Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario, Canada. Population: A cohort of 8752 women with a BMI of ≥35 kg/m2 who had a singleton birth at 38–42 weeks of gestation. Methods: Neonatal outcomes were compared between women who underwent a trial of labour (with either a successful vaginal birth or intrapartum CS) and those who underwent a planned CS. Main outcome measure: A composite of any of the following outcomes: intrapartum neonatal death, neonatal intensive care unit admission, 5‐minute Apgar score of <7 or umbilical artery pH of <7.1. Results: During the study period, 8433 (96.4%) women had a trial of labour and 319 (3.6%) had a planned CS. Intrapartum CS was performed in 1644 (19.5%) cases. There was no association between planned mode of delivery and the primary outcome (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59–1.07). The primary outcome was lower among women who had a successful trial of labour (aOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50–0.91) and was higher among women who had a failed trial of labour (aOR 1.74, 95% CI 1.21–2.48), compared with women who underwent a planned CS. Conclusions: In women with a BMI of ≥35 kg/m2 at a gestational age of 38–42 weeks, neonatal outcomes are comparable between planned vaginal delivery and planned CS, although a failed trial of labour is at risk of adverse neonatal outcome. Neonatal outcomes are not affected by planned mode of delivery in women who are obese, with a BMI of ≥35 kg/m2. Neonatal outcomes are not affected by planned mode of delivery in women with obesity BMI ≥35 kg/m2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Does planned caesarean compared with planned vaginal birth lower the risk of problematic urinary stress, faecal, or flatal incontinence?Design: Women between 320/7 and 386/7 weeks of gestation with a twin pregnancy were randomised to planned caesarean or planned vaginal birth.Setting: The trial took place at 106 centres in 25 countries.Population: A total of 2305 of the 2804 women enrolled in the study completed questionnaires at 2 years (82.2% follow-up): 1155 in the planned caesarean group and 1150 in the planned vaginal birth group.Methods: A structured self-administered questionnaire completed at 2 years postpartum.Main Outcome Measures: The primary maternal outcome of the Twin Birth Study was problematic urinary stress, or fecal, or flatal incontinence at 2 years RESULTS: Women in the planned caesarean group had lower problematic urinary stress incontinence rates compared with women in the planned vaginal birth group [93/1147 (8.11%) versus 140/1143 (12.25%); odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.83; P = 0.001]. Among those with problematic urinary stress incontinence, quality of life (measured using the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire, IIQ-7) was not different for planned caesarean versus planned vaginal birth groups [mean (SD): 18.4 (21.0) versus 19.1 (21.5); P = 0.82]. There were no differences in problematic faecal or flatal incontinence, or in other maternal outcomes.Conclusions: Among women with a twin pregnancy and no prior history of urinary stress incontinence, a management strategy of planned caesarean compared with planned vaginal birth reduces the risk of problematic urinary stress incontinence at 2 years postpartum. Our findings show that the prevalence but not the severity of urinary stress incontinence was associated with mode of birth.Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) (grant no. MCT-63164).Tweetable Abstract: For women with twins, planned caesarean compared with planned vaginal birth is associated with decreased prevalence but not severity of urinary stress incontinence at 2 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)

Dysregulation of maternal adaptations to pregnancy due to high pre-pregnancy BMI (pBMI) or excess gestational weight gain (GWG) is associated with worsened health outcomes for mothers and children. Whether the gut microbiome contributes to these adaptations is unclear. We longitudinally investigated the impact of pBMI and GWG on the pregnant gut microbiome. We show that the gut microbiota of participants with higher pBMI changed less over the course of pregnancy in primiparous but not multiparous participants. This suggests that previous pregnancies may have persistent impacts on maternal adaptations to pregnancy. This ecological memory appears to be passed on to the next generation, as parity modulated the impact of maternal GWG on the infant gut microbiome. This work supports a role of the gut microbiome in maternal adaptations to pregnancy and highlights the need for longitudinal sampling and accounting for parity as key considerations for studies of the microbiome in pregnancy and infants. Understanding how these factors contribute to and shape maternal health is essential for the development of interventions impacting the microbiome, including pre/probiotics.

Introduction: Placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) disorder is a life-threatening condition that may result in serious maternal complications, including mortality. The placenta which is pathologically adherent to the uterine wall, places individuals at high risk of major haemorrhage during the third stage of labour. Current research reports on PAS disorder outcomes have highly variable levels of information, which is therefore difficult for investigators to aggregate to inform practice. There is an urgent need to harmonise data collection in prospective studies to identify and implement best practices for management. One approach to standardise outcomes across any health area via the use of core outcome sets (COSs), which are consensus-derived standardised sets of outcomes that all studies for a particular condition should measure and report. This protocol outlines the steps for developing a COS for PAS disorder (COPAS)., Methods and Analysis: This protocol outlines steps for the creation of COPAS. The first step, a systematic review, will identify all reported outcomes in the scientific literature. The second step will use qualitative one-on-one interviews to identify additional outcomes identified as important by patients and healthcare professionals that are not reported in the published literature. Outcomes from the first two steps will be combined to form an outcome inventory. This outcome inventory will inform the third step which is a Delphi survey that encourages agreement between patients and healthcare professionals on which outcomes are most important for inclusion in the COS. The fourth step, a consensus group meeting of representative participants, will finalise outcomes for inclusion in the PAS disorder COS., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has obtained Research Ethics Board approval from Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (#2338, #1488). We will aim to publish the study findings in an international peer-reviewed OBGYN journal., Registration Details: COMET Core Outcome Set Registration: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1127., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42020173426., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The use of low-dose aspirin for women with twin pregnancies remains controversial. This study was to describe the frequency of preeclampsia and aspirin use in twin pregnancies in real practice., Methods: This retrospective cohort study based on real-world data was conducted in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University between 2013 and 2020. Women with twin pregnancies who received prenatal care before 20 weeks of gestational age were included. They were divided into those using low-dose aspirin (LDA group) and those not using aspirin group (N-LDA group). The primary outcome was the frequency of preeclampsia, and secondary outcomes included early-onset and preterm mild and severe preeclampsia., Results: A total of 2,946 women had twin pregnancies, and 241 were excluded due to missing information. Of 2,705 eligible women, 291 (10.75%) were administered aspirin and the other 2,414 (89.25%) did not. The patients in the LDA group were significantly more likely to be older, have a higher rate of use of ART, have a previous history of hypertension, and have gestational diabetes ( p < 0.05). In the LDA group, aspirin compliance ≥50% was relatively low (14.43%, 42/291). Preeclampsia occurred in 106 of 291 participants (36.43%) in the LDA group, as compared to 449 of 2,411 (18.62%) in the N-LDA group (OR: 2.15, 95% CI: 1.62-2.82; p < 0.01). The association was confirmed (OR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.26-2.4; p < 0.01) in the 1:2 case-matched analysis. Higher odds of ratio in the LDA group were demonstrated (aORs > 1, p < 0.01), except for early-onset and preterm mild preeclampsia ( p > 0.05). This association was confirmed in a subgroup analysis of methods of conception (aORs ≥ 1, p > 0.05)., Conclusion: Aspirin prescription of 75 to 100 mg in twin pregnancies was associated with no significant reduction of preeclampsia, which may be due to poor compliance with the aspirin used. Further randomized controlled or prospective cohort studies are required., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Zhou, Zhao, Xu, Xiong, Barrett, Zhao and Li.)

Background: Maternal and neonatal outcomes of trial of labor after cesarean delivery of twins are similar to those of singleton trials of labor after cesarean delivery. However, previous studies did not stratify outcomes by second-twin presentation on admission to labor., Objective: To examine maternal and neonatal outcomes following trial of labor after cesarean delivery in twins with vertex-nonvertex presentation., Study Design: A retrospective multicenter study was conducted including data on deliveries occurring between the years 2005 and 2020. We included trials of labor after a previous cesarean delivery (at ≥32 0/7 weeks' gestation) of twin gestations with a vertex-presenting first twin on admission to labor. The exposed group was defined as deliveries with a nonvertex second twin at admission to labor, whereas the comparison group included deliveries with a vertex second twin at admission. Only parturients who attempted vaginal delivery were included. Cases of prelabor fetal death of either twin or major fetal anomalies were excluded. The primary outcome was uterine rupture., Results: A total of 236 twin trials of labor after cesarean delivery were included, of which 128 involved nonvertex second twins and 108 a second vertex twin. Uterine rupture rates were comparable between the groups (1/128 [0.9%] vs 1/108 [0.8%]; P=1.000). Successful trial of labor after cesarean delivery of both twins occurred in 76.6% of the exposed group vs 81.5% of the comparison group, whereas cesarean delivery of both twins was performed in 21.9% of the exposed group vs 17.6% of the comparison group (P=.418; odds ratio, 1.32; confidence interval, 0.7-2.5). Two cases of cesarean delivery of the second twin occurred in the exposed group and 1 in the comparison group (1.6% vs 0.9%, respectively, P=1.000). There was no difference between the groups in maternal outcomes, including rates of postpartum hemorrhage, blood transfusion, placental abruption, thromboembolic events, and maternal fever. Neonatal outcomes were also comparable between the groups, including rates of intensive care admission and low (≤7) 5-minute Apgar scores., Conclusion: Our data show that trial of labor after cesarean delivery of noncephalic second twins holds favorable maternal and neonatal outcomes, comparable with those of vertex-vertex trials of labor after cesarean delivery. Second-twin noncephalic presentation should not discourage parturients and caregivers from considering trial of labor after cesarean delivery if desired., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the population-level impact of COVID-19 pandemic-related obstetric practice changes on maternal and newborn outcomes., Methods: Segmented regression analysis examined changes that occurred 240 weeks pre-pandemic through the first 32 weeks of the pandemic using data from Ontario's Better Outcomes Registry & Network. Outcomes included birth location, length of stay, labour analgesia, mode of delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth. Immediate and gradual effects were modelled with terms representing changes in intercepts and slopes, corresponding to the start of the pandemic., Results: There were 799 893 eligible pregnant individuals included in the analysis; 705 767 delivered in the pre-pandemic period and 94 126 during the pandemic wave 1 period. Significant immediate decreases were observed for hospital births (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% CI 0.98-0.99), length of stay (median change -3.29 h; 95% CI -3.81 to -2.77), use of nitrous oxide (RR 0.11; 95% CI 0.09-0.13) and general anesthesia (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.58- 0.81), and trial of labour after cesarean (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.83-0.96). Conversely, there were significant immediate increases in home births (RR 1.35; 95% CI 1.21-1.51), and use of epidural (RR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.04) and regional anesthesia (RR 1.01; 95% CI 1.01-1.02). There were no significant immediate changes for any other outcomes, including preterm birth (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93-1.05) and stillbirth (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.87-1.42)., Conclusion: Provincial health system changes implemented at the start of the pandemic resulted in immediate clinical practice changes but not insignificant increases in adverse outcomes., (Copyright © 2022 The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada/La Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The mode of delivery in multiple pregnancies has been subject to vigorous debates during the last few decades. Although observational and retrospective data were accumulated, it was not until the publication of the Twin Birth Study that evidence-based recommendations could emerge. However, although some of the most pressing questions were answered by the Twin Birth Study, other questions were left outside the scope of the study. The questions were of great interest and included the following topics: the impact of gestational age, the influence of chorionicity, and the generalizability of the results for women with a previous uterine scar. The current evidence supported a trial of labor in dichorionic-diamniotic or monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies in which the first twin is in cephalic presentation at ≥32 weeks' gestation. Dichorionic-diamniotic, monochorionic-diamniotic, and monochorionic-monoamniotic twins should be delivered at 37 0/7 to 38 0/7, 36 0/7 to 37 0/7, and 32 0/7 to 34 0/7 weeks' gestation, respectively. Breech extraction done by a competent healthcare provider seemed to offer a higher chance of successful vaginal delivery of the second twin than the external cephalic version. The current data did not allow for a clear recommendation regarding the mode of delivery in very preterm birth of low birthweight twins, but most studies did not demonstrate a clear benefit of cesarean delivery vs trial of labor. Furthermore, a trial of labor seemed safe in women with a previous cesarean delivery. Cesarean delivery is likely beneficial for twin pregnancies with the first twin in breech presentation, monochorionic-monoamniotic twins, and higher-order multiple pregnancies. In all multiple pregnancies, delivery should be performed by an experienced practitioner competent in multiple pregnancy deliveries., (Copyright © 2021 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.)

Objective: To evaluate whether pregnancy outcomes associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in twin pregnancies differ relatively from those in singleton pregnancy., Methods: We conducted a retrospective, population-based cohort study of all women with a liveborn singleton or twin hospital birth in Ontario, Canada, between 2012 and 2019. Data were obtained from the Better Outcomes Registry & Network Ontario. Pregnancy outcomes were compared between women with and without hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in twin gestations, and separately in singleton gestations. Adjusted relative risks (aRRs) and 95% CIs were generated using modified Poisson regression and were compared between twins and singletons using relative risk ratios., Results: Overall, 932,218 women met the study criteria, of whom 917,542 (98.4%) and 14,676 (1.6%) had singleton and twin gestations, respectively. The incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy was higher in women with twin compared with singleton gestations (14.4% vs 6.4%, aRR 1.85 [1.76-1.94]). Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy were associated with certain adverse outcomes in singleton gestations only and with other adverse outcomes in both the singleton and twin gestations, but the aRR was lower in twins. For example, preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation (singletons: 15.2% [hypertensive disorders of pregnancy] vs 5.4% [no hypertensive disorders of pregnancy], aRR 2.42; twins: 67.5% [hypertensive disorders of pregnancy] vs 50.4% [no hypertensive disorders of pregnancy], aRR 1.30) and neonatal respiratory morbidity (singletons: 16.3% [hypertensive disorders of pregnancy] vs 8.7% [no hypertensive disorders of pregnancy], aRR 1.50; twins: 39.8% [hypertensive disorders of pregnancy] vs 32.7% [no hypertensive disorders of pregnancy], aRR 1.13). These findings persisted in the subgroups of women with preeclampsia and early-onset preeclampsia., Conclusions: Although the absolute risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes is higher in twin compared with singleton pregnancies, the incremental risk of adverse outcomes associated with hypertensive disorders in twin pregnancies is lower than the incremental risk in singleton pregnancies. These findings may be attributed in part to the higher baseline risk of preterm birth and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in twin compared with singleton pregnancies., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Skin-to-skin contact between mother and infant immediately after birth is recommended regardless of delivery method; however, it is less common after cesarean delivery. We aimed to describe and compare women's experiences of cesarean birth with and without skin-to-skin contact at an urban tertiary care hospital., Methods: In this hermeneutic phenomenologic study, we used semistructured telephone interviews from 2015 to 2018 to interview a convenience sample of women who delivered at term by scheduled skin-to-skin cesarean birth at an urban tertiary care hospital in Toronto, Ontario. Women were invited to participate if they had had a previous planned or unplanned cesarean birth and a scheduled skin-to-skin cesarean birth between 2013 and 2017. Participants were excluded if they had antenatally diagnosed conditions, they delivered before 37 weeks, they had general anesthesia, their condition was unstable at the time of surgery, a skin-to-skin cesarean birth was not possible or they declined skin-to-skin cesarean birth. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed by means of thematic analysis., Results: Ten women were interviewed 1-19 months postpartum. Four central themes emerged: support for skin-to-skin cesarean birth (women feeling supported by their families and health care providers); control (participants experiencing greater control during their skin-to-skin cesarean birth); connection with the infant, which enabled women to be active participants in their delivery, enhanced bonding and intimacy, facilitated breastfeeding and bolstered confidence during early parenthood; and logistic considerations, with participants recognizing that skin-to-skin cesarean birth required additional resources., Interpretation: These findings refine what is known about skin-to-skin cesarean birth and provide a critical perspective, that of mothers. They support the transformation of traditional operating room dynamics to a more patient-centred environment., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© 2021 CMA Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Objective: To investigate the current practices of maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) specialists regarding the prevention and management of preterm birth (PTB) in twin pregnancies., Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of Canadian MFM specialists. Participants responded to an anonymous survey regarding the prevention and management of PTB in twins, including lifestyle and gestational weight gain recommendations, cervical length screening, PTB prevention, and labour and delivery practices., Results: Of 137 MFM specialists surveyed, 95 (69%) responded. Most MFM specialists recommend against activity restriction (77.9%), avoidance of sexual activity (96.7%), routine progesterone (97.8%), routine prophylactic cerclage (98.9%), and routine administration of antenatal corticosteroids (95.6%). There were considerable inconsistencies with respect to gestational weight gain management. Despite lack of support by guidelines, most MFM specialists reported using routine cervical length screening (97.8%) and progesterone for short cervix (92.3%). Over half (52.7%) of MFM specialists recommend cervical cerclage when the cervix is <15mm. In cases of PTB, most MFM specialists recommend vaginal delivery when twins are in vertex presentation (63%-75%). MFM specialists are less likely to recommend vaginal delivery when twin B is non-vertex (35%-41%)., Conclusion: There is a considerable variation among MFM specialists regarding the prevention and management of PTB in twins, and the practice of many MFM specialists differs from that recommended by professional societies' guidelines. These findings underscore the necessity for high-quality studies and up-to-date recommendations., (Copyright © 2020 The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada/La Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We retrospectively included women with abnormal FTS analytes and compared outcomes between those with elevated and normal UtA-PI. Out of 582 women with abnormal FTS analytes, 65 (11.2%) had elevated UtA-PI. Neonates of women in this group had higher rates of birth weight <3rd, 5th, and 10th percentile. The area under the ROC curve for predicting FGR <10th percentile by UtA-PI was 0.584, for FGR<5th percentile 0.593, and for FGR<3rd percentile 0.720. In women with abnormal FTS, elevated UtA-PI is associated with higher rates of FGR, but its predictability is moderate-to-poor., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. 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.)

Background: Although metformin is increasingly being used in women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy, little data exist on the benefits and harms of metformin use on pregnancy outcomes in these women. We aimed to investigate the effects of the addition of metformin to a standard regimen of insulin on neonatal morbidity and mortality in pregnant women with type 2 diabetes., Methods: In this prospective, multicentre, international, randomised, parallel, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial, women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy were randomly assigned from 25 centres in Canada and four in Australia to receive either metformin 1000 mg twice daily or placebo, added to insulin. Randomisation was done via a web-based computerised randomisation service and stratified by centre and pre-pregnancy BMI (<30 kg/m 2 or ≥30 kg/m 2 ) in a ratio of 1:1 using random block sizes of 4 and 6. Women were eligible if they had type 2 diabetes, were on insulin, had a singleton viable pregnancy, and were between 6 and 22 weeks plus 6 days' gestation. Participants were asked to check their fasting blood glucose level before the first meal of the day, before the last meal of the day, and 2 h after each meal. Insulin doses were adjusted aiming for identical glucose targets (fasting glucose <5·3 mmol/L [95 mg/dL], 2-h postprandial glucose <6·7 mmol/L [120 mg/dL]). Study visits were done monthly and patients were seen every 1-4 weeks as was needed for standard clinical care. At study visits blood pressure and bodyweight were measured; patients were asked about tolerance to their pills, any hospitalisations, insulin doses, and severe hypoglycaemia events; and glucometer readings were downloaded to the central coordinating centre. Participants, caregivers, and outcome assessors were masked to the intervention. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal and neonatal outcomes, for which we calculated the relative risk and 95% CI between groups, stratifying by site and BMI using a log-binomial regression model with an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included several relevant maternal and neonatal outcomes. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01353391., Findings: Between May 25, 2011, and Oct 11, 2018, we randomly assigned 502 women, 253 (50%) to metformin and 249 (50%) to placebo. Complete data were available for 233 (92%) participants in the metformin group and 240 (96%) in the placebo group for the primary outcome. We found no significant difference in the primary composite neonatal outcome between the two groups (40% vs 40%; p=0·86; relative risk [RR] 1·02 [0·83 to 1·26]). Compared with women in the placebo group, metformin-treated women achieved better glycaemic control (HbA 1c at 34 weeks' gestation 41·0 mmol/mol [SD 8·5] vs 43·2 mmol/mol [-10]; 5·90% vs 6·10%; p=0·015; mean glucose 6·05 [0·93] vs 6·27 [0·90]; difference -0·2 [-0·4 to 0·0]), required less insulin (1·1 units per kg per day vs 1·5 units per kg per day; difference -0·4 [95% CI -0·5 to -0·2]; p<0·0001), gained less weight (7·2 kg vs 9·0 kg; difference -1·8 [-2·7 to -0·9]; p<0·0001) and had fewer caesarean births (125 [53%] of 234 in the metformin group vs 148 [63%] of 236 in the placebo group; relative risk [RR] 0·85 [95% CI 0·73 to 0·99]; p=0·031). We found no significant difference between the groups in hypertensive disorders (55 [23%] in the metformin group vs 56 [23%] in the placebo group; p=0·93; RR 0·99 [0·72 to 1·35]). Compared with those in the placebo group, metformin-exposed infants weighed less (mean birthweight 3156 g [SD 742] vs 3375 g [742]; difference -218 [-353 to -82]; p=0·002), fewer were above the 97th centile for birthweight (20 [9%] in the metformin group vs 34 [15%] in the placebo group; RR 0·58 [0·34 to 0·97]; p=0·041), fewer weighed 4000 g or more at birth (28 [12%] in the metformin group vs 44 [19%] in the placebo group; RR 0·65 [0·43 to 0·99]; p=0·046), and metformin-exposed infants had reduced adiposity measures (mean sum of skinfolds 16·0 mm [SD 5·0] vs 17·4 [6·2] mm; difference -1·41 [-2·6 to -0·2]; p=0·024; mean neonatal fat mass 13·2 [SD 6·2] vs 14·6 [5·0]; p=0·017). 30 (13%) infants in the metformin group and 15 (7%) in the placebo group were small for gestational age (RR 1·96 [1·10 to 3·64]; p=0·026). We found no significant difference in the cord c-peptide between groups (673 pmol/L [435] in the metformin group vs 758 pmol/L [595] in the placebo group; p=0·10; ratio of means 0·88 [0·72 to 1·02]). The most common adverse event reported was gastrointestinal (38 events in the metformin group and 38 events in the placebo group)., Interpretation: We found several maternal glycaemic and neonatal adiposity benefits in the metformin group. Along with reduced maternal weight gain and insulin dosage and improved glycaemic control, the lower adiposity and infant size measurements resulted in fewer large infants but a higher proportion of small-for-gestational-age infants. Understanding the implications of these effects on infants will be important to properly advise patients who are contemplating the use of metformin during pregnancy., Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Canada's cesarean delivery (CD) rate continues to increase. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada advocates the use of the modified Robson classification for comparisons. This study describes national and provincial CD rates according to this classification system., Methods: All 2016-2017 in-hospital births in Canada (outside Québec) reported to the Discharge Abstract Database were categorized using the modified Robson classification system. CD rates, group size, and contributions of each group to the overall volume of CD were reported. Rates by province and hospital peer group were also examined (Canadian Task Force Classification III)., Results: A total of 286 201 women gave birth; among these, 83 262 (29.1%) had CDs. Robson group 5 (term singleton previous CD) had a CD rate of 80.5% and was the largest contributing group to the overall number of CD (36.6%). Women whose labour was induced (Robson group 2A) had a CD rate almost double the rate of women with spontaneous labour (Robson group 1): 33.5% versus 18.4%. These latter two groups made the next largest contributions to overall CD (15.7% and 14.1%, respectively). There were substantial variations in CD rates across provinces and among hospital peer groups., Conclusion: The study found large variations in CD rates across provinces and hospitals within each Robson group, thus suggesting that examining variations to determine the groups contributing the most to CD rates (Robson groups 5, 2A, and 1) may provide valuable insight for reducing CD rates. This study provides a benchmark for measuring the impact of future initiatives to reduce CD rates in Canada., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by 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.)

Objective: As survival increases at earlier gestational ages, the optimal mode of delivery, especially in cases of breech presentation, is of increasing importance. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of vaginal delivery (VD) and cesarean section (CS) births for infants in breech presentation at borderline viability. Study design: A retrospective chart review of live breech births between 23 + 0 and 25 + 6 weeks gestation at a tertiary university center from 2003 to 2013 was conducted. Those delivered vaginally were compared with those delivered by CS. Stillbirths and deliveries where no resuscitation was intended were removed from the analysis. Variables were compared using a Student t -test (continuous), Mann-Whitney U test (categorical), or a Chi-squared test (count). Logistic regression analysis was performed to further evaluate the results. Results with p  < .05 were considered significant. Results: One hundred seventy-six births were included, 36 VD and 140 CS. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Gestational age at delivery was significantly higher in CS deliveries (24.9 ± 0.6 versus 24.5 ± 0.7, p  = .0007). The rate of neonatal death (23.6% versus 44.4%, p  = .0127) was significantly lower in those born by CS. All other neonatal outcomes including Apgar scores at one and 5 min, cord gases, birth weight, length of stay in NICU, incidence of respiratory complications, and incidence of high-grade IVH demonstrated no significant differences. Logistic regression suggested that male sex, lower birth weight, and earlier gestational age are significantly associated with neonatal mortality. Thirty percent of uterine incisions were of the classical, high transverse or inverted-T types. The estimated blood loss was significantly higher in CS births (706.6 ± 226.4 versus 327.4 ± 174.1 mL, p  < .0001), but there was no difference in the rate of blood transfusion. Conclusion: CS delivery of breech infants at borderline viability had a protective effect on neonatal mortality compared to VD depending on the regression model utilized. Infant sex, birth weight, and gestational age also contribute significantly to neonatal mortality. A prospective study of planned method of delivery is recommended to further explore this finding.

Background: The Twin Birth Study, a multicenter randomized controlled trial, found no differences in neonatal outcomes in women with twins randomized to planned cesarean or vaginal delivery. Nevertheless, women who present in spontaneous labor might expect a better outcome following a trial of vaginal delivery than undergoing cesarean delivery. In this secondary analysis, we aimed to compare neonatal outcomes of women who presented in spontaneous labor in the two arms of the Twin Birth Study., Methods: Women in whom the first twin was in the cephalic presentation were randomized between 32 + 0 and 38 + 6 weeks to planned vaginal delivery or cesarean. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity., Results: Of the 2804 women included in the Twin Birth Study, 823 women in the planned vaginal delivery arm and 612 in the planned cesarean arm presented in spontaneous labor. Although the odds ratio favored planned vaginal delivery, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of primary outcome between the vaginal delivery and cesarean arms (1.8% vs 2.7%, respectively; P = 0.16; OR 1.49; 95% CI, 0.87-2.55). Similarly, the rates of the individual components of the primary outcome and of maternal adverse outcome were similar between the two arms., Conclusion: In women with twins who present in spontaneous labor between 32 + 0 and 38 + 6 weeks' gestation, where the first twin is cephalic, a policy of planned vaginal delivery or cesarean is not associated with significant differences in neonatal or maternal outcomes., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectif: L'objectif principal de la présente déclaration de consensus est d'élaborer des énoncés de consensus qui guideront la pratique clinique et des recommandations pour les soins prénataux et les soins intrapartum, et les considérations psychosociales dont il faut tenir compte pour prendre soin des femmes enceintes ayant des antécédents de mortinaissance., Utilisateurs Cibles: Les cliniciens participant à la prise en charge obstétrique des femmes ayant des antécédents de mortinaissance ou d'autres formes de décès périnatal., Population Cible: Les femmes et les familles recevant des soins après une grossesse s'étant soldée par une mortinaissance ou une autre forme de décès périnatal. ÉVIDENCE: La présente directive clinique résume la littérature publiée et énonce un consensus général sur la prise en charge des grossesses suivant une mortinaissance ou un décès périnatal. Nous avons interrogé les bases de données MEDLINE, Embase et Cochrane au moyen des mots-clés : « previous stillbirth », « perinatal loss » et « subsequent pregnancy ». Nous avons ensuite étudié les résultats et lu les articles pertinents. Nous avons également consulté les références des articles retenus et les documents citant des études pertinentes. Les données ont ensuite été présentées pendant une réunion de consensus, et les énoncés ont été formulés. En raison du manque de données probantes, nous avons également consulté les cheminements de soins de cliniques spécialisées., Validation: Le contenu et les lignes directrices ont été élaborés par les auteurs principaux en consultation avec les participants à la rencontre. Le Conseil d'administration de la Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada a approuvé la version finale avant publication. La qualité des données probantes a été évaluée au moyen des critères de l'approche GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) [tableau 1]. L'interprétation des recommandations solides et conditionnelles est décrite dans le tableau 2. Le résumé des conclusions peut être fourni sur demande. AVANTAGES, INCONVéNIENTS, COûTS: Nous avons exploré une approche multidisciplinaire de prestation des soins prénataux et intrapartum aux femmes et aux familles ayant des antécédents de mortinaissance ou de décès périnatal. Bien qu'il manque de données probantes dans ce domaine, certains membres du groupe de travail fournissent ces soins à des femmes et à des familles dans plusieurs pays et nous ont fait part de leurs connaissances et de leurs expériences dans le but de guider les soins. MIS-à-JOUR: Une revue des données probantes sera menée cinq ans après la publication de la présente directive clinique afin d'évaluer si une mise à jour complète ou partielle s'impose. Cependant, si de nouvelles données probantes importantes sont publiées avant la fin du cycle de cinq ans, le processus pourrait être accéléré afin que certaines recommandations soient mises à jour rapidement., Commanditaires: La présente directive clinique a été élaborée à l'aide de ressources financées par la Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada et le Programme pour les femmes et les bébés du Centre Sunnybrook des sciences et la santé tableau 1,2. DéCLARATIONS SOMMAIRES ET RECOMMANDATIONS., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: The primary objective of this consensus statement is to develop consensus statements to guide clinical practice and recommendations for antenatal care, intrapartum care, and the psychosocial considerations necessary in the care of pregnant women with a history of stillbirth., Intended Users: Clinicians involved in the obstetric management of women with a history of stillbirth or other causes of perinatal loss TARGET POPULATION: Women and families presenting for care following a pregnancy affected by stillbirth or other causes perinatal loss EVIDENCE: This document presents a summary of the literature and a general consensus on the management of pregnancies subsequent to stillbirth and perinatal loss. Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched using the following key words: previous stillbirth, perinatal loss, subsequent pregnancy. The results were then studied, and relevant papers were reviewed. The references of the reviewed studies were also searched, as were documents citing pertinent studies. The evidence was then presented at a consensus meeting, and statements were developed. Due to lack of evidence, care pathways of specialty clinics were consulted., Validation Methods: The content and guidelines were developed by the primary authors in consultation with the meeting attendees. The Board of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada approved the final draft for publication. The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology framework (Table 1). The interpretation of strong and weak recommendations is described in Table 2. The Summary of Findings is available upon request., Benefits, Harms, and Costs: A multidisciplinary approach in the provision of antenatal and intrapartum care to women and families with a history of stillbirth and perinatal loss was explored. While there is a lack of evidence in this area, members of the working group are providing care to women and families around the world and are sharing their knowledge and experience to help guide care., Guideline Update: Evidence will be reviewed 5 years after publication to evaluate whether all or part of the guideline should be updated. However, if important new evidence is published prior to the 5-year cycle, the review process may be accelerated for a more rapid update of some recommendations., Sponsors: This guideline was developed with resources funded by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and the Women and Babies Program at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre., (Copyright © 2018 Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)