• About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Login
    • ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • #GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
About Us Contact Us Login ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • 0 CME Hours
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • #GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
#Grand Rounds

Twin Birth Study: Is There an Optimal Delivery Method for Monochorionic-Diamniotic Twins?

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

  • Studies investigating the optimal mode of delivery for monochorionic-diamniotic twins are mostly small, retrospective, observational studies
  • Aviram et al. (AJOG, 2020) compared perinatal and maternal outcomes of planned cesarean delivery and planned vaginal delivery of monochorionic-diamniotic twins using the Twin Birth Study data

METHODS:

  • Secondary analysis of the Twin Birth Study
  • Twin Birth Study: RCT that included dichorionic-diamniotic (DCDA) and monochorionic-diamniotic (MCDA) twins from 32w0d to 38w6d
  • Participant data used for this secondary analysis
    • MCDA twin pregnancies | Twin A was in cephalic presentation | Each twin had an estimated weight between 1500 and 4000 grams
  • Intervention
    • Planned cesarean
    • Planned vaginal delivery
  • Study design
    • Elective delivery planned between 37 weeks and 5 to 7 days of gestation and 38 weeks and 6 to 7 days of gestation
  • Comparisons in maternal and perinatal outcomes were made between
    • The two intervention groups
    • MCDA and DCDA twin pregnancies

RESULTS:

  • Current secondary study
    • Planned cesarean: 346 women
    • Planned vaginal delivery: 324 women
  • Rate of cesarean delivery
    • Planned vaginal delivery: 39.2%
    • Planned cesarean delivery: 91.3%
  • There was no significant difference in gestational age at delivery between the groups (P = 0.78)
    • Vaginal: 34.4 weeks
    • Cesarean: 34.5 weeks
  • There was no difference in maternal outcomes between the two intervention groups
  • The rate of adverse neonatal composite outcomes in twins A or twins B was similar in both intervention groups
    • Twins A: 1.2% vs 1.2% (P = 0.92)
    • Twins B: 1.2% vs 3.2% (P = 0.09)
  • In the planned cesarean group, the rate of adverse neonatal composite outcome was higher in twins B than twins A (P = 0.03)
    • Twins A: 1.2%
    • Twins B: 3.2%
  • When comparing MCDA pregnancies and DCDA pregnancies, there was no difference in the primary adverse neonatal composite outcome between twins A or twins B
    • Twins A: 1.2% vs 1.3% (P = 0.89)
    • Twins B: 2.3% vs 2.7% (P = 0.47)

CONCLUSION:

  • For MCDA twin pregnancies (1) between 32 weeks and 38 weeks; (2) between 1500 and 4000 grams and (3) twin A is in cephalic presentation, planned cesarean delivery did not impact the risk of serious adverse neonatal outcomes compared to vaginal delivery
  • There is a significant limitation to this study as it was underpowered for the primary composite outcome | However, it is unlikely an RCT will be planned for this specific twin subgroup due to number of participants required for higher power (>6000)
  • The authors state that while these data are reassuring

It should be noted that our findings are generalizable only to centers that are capable of providing obstetrical care similar to that outlined in the TBS, including but not limited to the presence of an experienced obstetrician at delivery and the ability to perform an urgent CD

Learn More – Primary Sources:

Delivery of monochorionic twins: lessons learned from the Twin Birth Study

Now You Can Get ObG Clinical Research Summaries Direct to Your Phone, with ObGFirst

ObGFirst® – Try It Free! »

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite
< Previous
All #Grand Rounds Posts
Next >

Related ObG Topics:

Vaginal Delivery of Twin A and Cesarean Delivery for Twin B: Risk Factors and Outcomes
Twin Pregnancy Outcomes Following Confirmation of Viability in the First Trimester
Planned Cesarean or Planned Vaginal Delivery for Twins?
Is There a Role for Vaginal Delivery if First Twin is in Breech Presentation?

Sections

  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • #Grand Rounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media

ObG Library

  • Hysteroscopy
  • Fertility
  • Site Map/
  • © ObG Project/
  • Terms and Conditions/
  • Privacy/
  • Contact Us/
© ObG Project
SSL Certificate


  • Already an ObGFirst Member?
    Welcome back

    Log In

    Want to sign up?
    Get guideline notifications
    CME Included

    Sign Up

Get Guideline Alerts Direct to Your Phone
Try ObGFirst Free!

Sign In

Lost your password?

Sign Up for ObGFirst and Stay Ahead

  • - Professional guideline notifications
  • - Daily summary of a clinically relevant
    research paper
  • - Includes 1 hour of CME every month

ObGFirst Free Trial

Log In to ObG First

Please log in to access OBGFirst and the 2T Ultrasound Atlas

Password Trouble?

Sign Up for ObGFirst

  • - Access 2T US Atlas
  • - Guideline notifications
  • - Daily research paper summaries
  • - And lots more!

ObG First Free Trial

Media - Internet

Computer System Requirements

OBG Project CME requires a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 10+, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge). Certain educational activities may require additional software to view multimedia, presentation, or printable versions of their content. These activities will be marked as such and will provide links to the required software. That software may be: Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Media Player, or Real Networks Real One Player.

Disclosure of Unlabeled Use

This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.

The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.

Disclaimer

Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information
presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications and/or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.

Jointly provided by

NOT ENOUGH CME HOURS

It appears you don't have enough CME Hours to take this Post-Test. Feel free to buy additional CME hours or upgrade your current CME subscription plan

Subscribe

JOIN OBGFIRST AND GET CME/CE CREDITS

One of the benefits of an ObGFirst subscription is the ability to earn CME/CE credits from the ObG entries you read. Tap the button to learn more about ObGFirst

Learn More
Leaving ObG Website

You are now leaving the ObG website and on your way to PRIORITY at UCSF, an independent website. Therefore, we are not responsible for the content or availability of this site