Search

Background: Preterm premature rupture of membranes complicates approximately 3% of pregnancies. Currently, in the absence of chorioamnionitis or placental abruption, expectant management, including antenatal steroids for lung maturation and prophylactic antibiotic treatment, is recommended. The benefits of individualized management have not been adequately explored.Objective: This study aimed to compare the impact of 2 different management strategies of preterm premature rupture of membranes in 2 tertiary obstetrical centers on latency of >7 days, latency to birth, chorioamnionitis, funisitis, and short-term adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.Study Design: This was a multicenter retrospective study of women with singleton pregnancies with preterm premature rupture of membranes from 23 0/7 to 33 6/7 weeks of gestation between 2014 and 2018 and undelivered within 24 hours after hospital admission managed at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Canada (standard management group), and BCNatal (Hospital Clínic of Barcelona and Hospital Sant Joan de Déu Barcelona), Barcelona, Spain (individualized management group), following local protocols. The standard management group received similar management for all patients, which included a standard antibiotic regimen and routine maternal and fetal surveillance, whereas the individualized management group received personalized management on the basis of amniocentesis at hospital admission (if possible), to rule out microbial invasion of the amniotic cavity and targeted treatment. The exclusion criteria were cervical dilatation >2 cm, active labor, contraindications to expectant management (acute chorioamnionitis, placental abruption, or abnormal fetal tracing), and major fetal anomalies. The primary outcome was latency of >7 days, and the secondary outcomes included latency to birth, chorioamnionitis, and short-term adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Statistical comparisons between groups were conducted with propensity score weighting.Results: A total of 513 pregnancies with preterm premature rupture of membranes were included in this study: 324 patients received standard management, and 189 patients received individualized management, wherein amniocentesis was performed in 112 cases (59.3%). After propensity score weighting, patients receiving individualized management had a higher latency of >7 days (76.0% vs 41.6%; P<.001) and latency to birth (18.1±14.7 vs 9.7±9.7 days; P<.001). Although a higher rate of clinical chorioamnionitis was suspected in the individualized management group than the standard group (34.5% vs 22.0%; P<.01), there was no difference between the groups in terms of histologic chorioamnionitis (67.2% vs 73.4%; P=.16), funisitis (57.6% vs 58.1%; P=.92), or composite infectious maternal outcomes (9.1% vs 7.9%; P=.64). Prolonged latency in the individualized management group was associated with a significant reduction of preterm birth at <32 weeks of gestation (72.1% vs 90.5%; P<.001), neonatal intensive care unit admission (75.6% vs 83.0%; P=.046), and neonatal respiratory support at 28 days of life (16.1% vs 26.1%; P<.01) compared with that in the standard management group. Moreover, prolonged latency was not associated with neonatal severe morbidity at discharge (survival without severe morbidity, 80.4% vs 73.5%; P=.09).Conclusion: Individualized management of preterm premature rupture of membranes may prolong pregnancy and reduce preterm birth at <32 weeks of gestation, the need for neonatal support, and neonatal intensive care unit admissions, without an increase in histologic chorioamnionitis, funisitis, neonatal infection-related morbidity, and short-term adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Twin Birth Study randomized women with uncomplicated pregnancies, between 32(0/7)-38(6/7) weeks' gestation where the first twin was in cephalic presentation, to a policy of either a planned cesarean or planned vaginal delivery. The primary analysis showed that planned cesarean delivery did not increase or decrease the risk of fetal/neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity as compared with planned vaginal delivery.Objective: This study presents the secondary outcome of death or neurodevelopmental delay at 2 years of age.Study Design: A total of 4603 children from the initial cohort of 5565 fetuses/infants (83%) contributed to the outcome of death or neurodevelopmental delay. Surviving children were screened using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire with abnormal scores validated by a clinical neurodevelopmental assessment. The effect of planned cesarean vs planned vaginal delivery on death or neurodevelopmental delay was quantified using a logistic model to control for stratification variables and using generalized estimating equations to account for the nonindependence of twin births.Results: Baseline maternal, pregnancy, and infant characteristics were similar. Mean age at assessment was 26 months. There was no significant difference in the outcome of death or neurodevelopmental delay: 5.99% in the planned cesarean vs 5.83% in the planned vaginal delivery group (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.41; P = .79).Conclusion: A policy of planned cesarean delivery provides no benefit to children at 2 years of age compared with a policy of planned vaginal delivery in uncomplicated twin pregnancies between 32(0/7)-38(6/7)weeks' gestation where the first twin is in cephalic presentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]