Mode of delivery and neonatal outcomes in extremely preterm Vertex/nonVertex twins

Risk of intrapartum cesarean delivery in twin pregnancies: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of intrapartum cesarean delivery (CD) between patients with twin and singleton pregnancies undergoing a trial of labor and identify risk factors for intrapartum CD in twin pregnancies.

METHODS

The present study was a retrospective cohort study of patients with a twin or singleton pregnancy who underwent a trial of labor at ≥340/7 weeks in a single center (2015-2022). The primary outcome was the rate of intrapartum CD. In twin pregnancies, this outcome was limited to CD of both twins. The association of plurality with intrapartum CD was estimated using multivariable Poisson regression.

RESULTS

A total of 20 754 patients met the study criteria, 669 of whom had a twin pregnancy. Patients with twins had a greater risk of intrapartum CD (of both twins) than those with singleton pregnancies (22.1% vs 15.9%, respectively; aRR 1.38 [95% CI: 1.15-1.66]), primarily due to a greater risk of failure to progress. In addition, 4.1% of the twin pregnancies had a CD for the second twin, resulting in an overall CD rate in twin pregnancies of 26.2%. Variables associated with intrapartum CD in twin pregnancies included nulliparity (aOR 3.50, 95% CI: 2.34-5.25), birthweight discordance >20% (aOR 2.47, 95% CI: 1.27-4.78), and labor induction (aOR 1.64, 95% CI: 1.07-2.53). The rate of intrapartum CD was highest when all three risk factors were present (67% [95% CI: 41%-87%]).

CONCLUSION

Twin pregnancies are associated with a greater risk of intrapartum CD than singleton pregnancies. Information on the individualized risk of intrapartum CD may be valuable when counseling patients with twins regarding mode of delivery.

Mode of delivery and neonatal outcomes in preterm twins less than 32 weeks of gestation or birthweight under 1500 g: a systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

The mode of delivery for twins born before 32 weeks of gestation remains controversial. Our purpose is to conduct a meta-analysis of twin pregnancies less than 32 weeks or twin weight less than 1500 g, so as to find a suitable delivery mode.

METHODS

We searched PubMed database, Cochrane Library database, and EMBASE database through December 2022. This protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023386946) prior to initiation. Studies that compared vaginal delivery to cesarean section for newborns less than 32 weeks of gestation or birthweight under 1500 g were included. The primary result was neonatal mortality rate. Secondary result was neonatal morbidity. The quality of literatures included in the research was evaluated in accordance with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) literature quality evaluation scale. We use odds ratio (OR) as the effect index for binary variables. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. P < 0. 05 indicated statistically significant difference.

RESULTS

Our search generated 5310 articles, and a total of 8 articles comprising a total of 14,703 newborns were included in the analysis. The odds ratios of neonatal mortality rate were for twins delivered by vaginal delivery compared to cesarean section were 0.84 (95% CI 0.57-1.24, P = 0.38). The 5-min Apgar score < 7 (95% CI 0.44-1.75, P = 0.72), necrotizing enterocolitis (95% CI 0.81-1.19, P = 0.82), intraventricular hemorrhage (95% CI 0.41-1.86, P = 0.71), periventricular leukomalacia (95% CI 0.16-4.52, P = 0.84), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (95% CI 0.88-1.36, P = 0.42), and respiratory distress syndrome (95% CI 0.23-2.01, P = 0.48) were not statistically significant between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

We have observed that vaginal delivery does not confer an increased risk of neonatal morbidity and mortality in twins born before 32 weeks of gestation. However, the current results are affected by substantial heterogeneity and confounding factors. We still need high-quality randomized-controlled studies require to address this important question.

National and international guidelines on the management of twin pregnancies: a comparative review

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.

Labour induction in twin pregnancies

Medically-indicated deliveries are common in twin pregnancies given the increased risk of various obstetric complications in twin compared to singleton pregnancies, mainly hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and foetal growth restriction. Due to the unique characteristics of twin pregnancies, the success rates and safety of labour induction may be different than in singleton pregnancies. However, while there are abundant data regarding induction of labour in singleton pregnancies, the efficacy and safety of labour induction in twin pregnancies have been far less studied. In the current manuscript we summarize available data on various aspects of labour induction in twin pregnancies including incidence, success rate, prognostic factors, safety and methods for labour induction in twins. This information may assist healthcare providers in counselling patients with twin pregnancies when labour induction is indicated.

Mode of delivery in multiple pregnancies

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.