• Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. · Aug 2015

    Mode of delivery of twin gestation with very low birthweight: is vaginal delivery safe?

    • Eran Barzilay, Shali Mazaki-Tovi, Uri Amikam, Hila de Castro, Jigal Haas, Ram Mazkereth, Eyal Sivan, Eyal Schiff, and Yoav Yinon.
    • Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer, Israel. Electronic address: eran.barzilay@gmail.com.
    • Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2015 Aug 1;213(2):219.e1-8.

    ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine whether planned vaginal delivery is associated with increased risk of perinatal death and morbidity in twin pregnancies that are complicated by a very low birthweight of the second twin.Study DesignWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of twin pregnancies in which the second twin's birthweight was ≤1500 g. One hundred ninety-three twin gestations met the study criteria; patients were classified into 2 groups according to the planned mode of delivery: (1) cesarean delivery (n = 142) and (2) vaginal delivery (n = 51). In the vaginal delivery group, 21 pairs were in cephalic-cephalic presentation at the time of delivery; 28 pairs were cephalic-noncephalic, and 2 pairs were noncephalic-noncephalic. Composite adverse neonatal outcome was defined as the presence of neonatal death, respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, or intraventricular hemorrhage grade 3-4.ResultsTrial of vaginal delivery was successful for both twins in 90.5% of cephalic-cephalic twins and 96.4% in cephalic-noncephalic twins. The rate of intraventricular hemorrhage was significantly higher in the vaginal delivery group (29.4% vs 8.5%, respectively; P = .013; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-10.1). The increased risk of intraventricular hemorrhage in the vaginal delivery groups was evident in both twin A (17.6% vs 7.0%; P = .029) and twin B (15.7% vs 4.9%; P = .014); however, these differences were not significant after adjustment for possible confounders (twin A: adjusted OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 0.58-5.55; twin B: adjusted OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 0.63-7.25). In addition, subgroup analysis revealed that both cephalic-cephalic and cephalic-noncephalic twins who were delivered vaginally had increased risk for intraventricular hemorrhage. There were no significant differences between the cesarean and vaginal delivery groups in the rates of Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes, arterial cord pH <7.1, composite adverse neonatal outcome, and neonatal mortality rate. However, the rate of respiratory distress syndrome was significantly lower in the vaginal delivery group (66.7% vs 69%; P = .042; OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12-0.96).ConclusionVaginal delivery of very low birthweight twins is associated with an increased risk of intraventricular hemorrhage, regardless of presentation. Because of the small sample size and the retrospective cohort design, large prospective randomized studies are needed.Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…