Search

Objective: To compare the short- and mid-term outcomes of preterm twins by chorionicity of pregnancy.Design: Prospective nationwide population-based EPIPAGE-2 cohort study.Setting: 546 maternity units in France, between March and December 2011.Population: A total of 1700 twin neonates born between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation.Methods: The association of chorionicity with outcomes was analysed using multivariate regression models.Main Outcome Measures: First, survival at 2-year corrected age with or without neurosensory impairment, and second, perinatal, short-, and mid-term outcomes (survival at discharge, survival at discharge without severe morbidity) were described and compared by chorionicity.Results: In the EPIPAGE 2 cohort, 1700 preterm births were included (850 twin pregnancies). In all, 1220 (71.8%) were from dichorionic (DC) pregnancies and 480 from monochorionic (MC) pregnancies. MC pregnancies had three times more medical terminations than DC pregnancies (1.67 versus 0.51%, P < 0.001), whereas there were three times more stillbirths in MC than in DC pregnancies (10.09 versus 3.78%, P < 0.001). Both twins were alive at birth in 86.6% of DC pregnancies compared with 80.0% among MC pregnancies (P = 0.008). No significant difference according to chorionicity was found regarding neonatal deaths and morbidities. Likewise, for children born earlier than 32 weeks, the 2-year follow-up neurodevelopmental results were not significantly different between DC and MC twins.Conclusions: This study confirms that MC pregnancies have a higher risk of adverse outcomes. However, the outcomes among preterm twins admitted to neonatal intensive care units are similar irrespective of chorionicity.Tweetable Abstract: Monochorionicity is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, but outcomes for preterm twins are comparable irrespective of their chorionicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objectives: This study was performed to understand the parental attitudes, needs and ethical issues associated with perinatal death, to assist in the development of interventions for bereaved families. Study design: We conducted a qualitative descriptive survey of parental experiences with perinatal death. We developed a questionnaire based on the Delphi method, conducted semi-directed interviews or asked subjects to return the questionnaire by post. As a secondary analysis, we examined whether certain ethical principles (i.e., the concepts of beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice) were encountered by the study participants. The study population consisted of families who had experienced perinatal death in the maternity department of a French university hospital, as well as members of bereaved parent support groups. Results: Six of the 12 parents who participated in the survey were members of a support group. Responses were analyzed according to precise objectives and grouped according to key themes. In particular, we studied deaths that occurred during neonatal palliative care and deaths relating to multiple pregnancies. Parents expressed opinions about the caregivers’ practices (e.g., which practices were beneficial and detrimental). Half of the parents did not feel that their feelings and decisions were respected according to ethical principles. Understanding the experience of parents allows staff to reconsider and change their practices. Conclusions: By understanding parents’ feelings toward neonatal death, caregivers can better assist with the grieving process. Our study reveals parents’ attitudes toward the ethical decision-making process and shows that it is difficult for perinatal medicine caregivers to respect parents’ autonomy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]