Search

Background: This secondary analysis for the Twin Birth Study, an international, multicenter trial, aimed to compare the cesarean section rates and safety between methods of induction of labor in twin pregnancies., Methods: Women with twin pregnancies where the first twin was in a cephalic presentation and who presented for labor induction, were non-randomly assigned to receive prostaglandin or amniotomy and/or oxytocin. Main outcome measures were the rates of unplanned cesarean section and neonatal and maternal mortality or serious morbidity., Results: 153 (41.5%) were induced by prostaglandin (prostaglandin group) and 215 (58.5%) were induced by amniotomy and/or oxytocin alone (no prostaglandin group). Induction using prostaglandin was more common in countries with a low perinatal mortality rate <10/1000 (45.7 versus 32.5%, p = 0.02). Cesarean section rates were similar in the two groups: 62/153 (40.5%) in the prostaglandin group and 87/215 (40.5%) in the no prostaglandin group (odds ratio 1, 95% CI 0.65-1.5). Nulliparity, late maternal age, non-cephalic presentation of twin B and high country's perinatal mortality rate were found to be independently associated with the induction to end with an unplanned cesarean section. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to maternal or neonatal adverse outcomes., Conclusions: The need for cervical ripening by prostaglandin had no effect on the incidence of cesarean delivery or an abnormal outcome. There is a significant risk of unplanned cesarean section independent of chosen induction method., Trial Registration: This trial was registered at the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Register (identifier ISRCTN74420086 ; December 9, 2003) and retrospectively registered at the www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT 00187369 ; September 12, 2005).

Objective: The Twin Birth Study, an international, multi-center randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the risks of planned cesarean with planned vaginal delivery for twin pregnancies. The aim of this component of the trial was to understand participants' perspectives of study participation and preferences for the mode of delivery., Methods: A mixed-methods questionnaire was distributed to study participants 3 months after giving birth. The questionnaire contained Likert scales and open-ended questions about the experience of being enrolled in a clinical trial and of childbirth, including the mode of delivery. Quantitative data were analyzed using SAS to generate descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed to identify categories and themes., Results: Ninety-one percent of trial participants completed the questionnaire. Across all groups, the majority of women would participate in a study like this one again if given the opportunity. Main benefits of participating were as follows: benefits to one and one's babies, altruism, and receiving quality care. Randomization for the mode of delivery was challenging for women because of the desire to be involved in decision-making. Findings related to childbirth experience and the mode of delivery demonstrated a preference for vaginal birth across all groups. Those who had a vaginal birth were more satisfied with their birth experience., Conclusions: This study provides evidence to inform practitioners about what women who have twin pregnancies like or dislike about birth and their desire for involvement in decision-making. Vaginal birth was preferred across all study groups and was associated with greater satisfaction with childbirth experience., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Twin pregnancies are associated with increased perinatal mortality, mainly related to prematurity, but complications during birth may contribute to perinatal loss or morbidity. The option of planned caesarean section to avoid such complications must therefore be considered. On the other hand, randomised trials of other clinical interventions in the birth process to avoid problems related to labour and birth (planned caesarean section for breech, and continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring), have shown an unexpected discordance between short-term perinatal morbidity and long-term neurological outcome. The risks of caesarean section for the mother in the current and subsequent pregnancies must also be taken into account., Objectives: To determine the short- and long-term effects on mothers and their babies, of planned caesarean section for twin pregnancy., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (18 November 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials comparing a policy of caesarean section with planned vaginal birth for women with twin pregnancy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, quality and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. For important outcomes the quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We included two trials comparing planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for twin pregnancies.Most of the data included in the review were from a multicentre trial where 2804 women were randomised in 106 centres in 25 countries. All centres had facilities to perform emergency caesarean section and had anaesthetic, obstetrical, and nursing staff available in the hospital at the time of planned vaginal delivery. In the second trial carried out in Israel, 60 women were randomised. We judged the risk of bias to be low for all categories except performance (high) and outcome assessment bias (unclear).There was no clear evidence of differences between women randomised to planned caesarean section or planned vaginal birth for maternal death or serious morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.11; 2844 women; two studies; moderate quality evidence). There was no significant difference between groups for perinatal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.67; data for 5565 babies, one study, moderate quality evidence). No studies reported childhood disability.For secondary outcomes there was no clear evidence of differences between groups for perinatal or neonatal mortality (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.62; 5685 babies; two studies, moderate quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.64; 5644 babies; two studies, moderate quality evidence) or any of the other neonatal outcomes reported.The number of women undergoing caesarean section was reported in both trials. Most women in the planned caesarean group had treatment as planned (90.9% underwent caesarean section), whereas in the planned vaginal birth group 42.9% had caesarean section for at least one twin. For maternal mortality; no events were reported in one trial and two deaths (one in each group) in the other. There were no significant differences between groups for serious maternal morbidity overall (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.11; 2844 women; two studies) or for different types of short-term morbidity. There were no significant differences between groups for failure to breastfeed (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.38; 2570 women, one study; moderate quality evidence) or the number of women with scores greater than 12 on the Edinbugh postnatal depression scale (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 2570 women, one study; moderate quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Data mainly from one large, multicentre study found no clear evidence of benefit from planned caesarean section for term twin pregnancies with leading cephalic presentation. Data on long-term infant outcomes are awaited. Women should be informed of possible risks and benefits of labour and vaginal birth pertinent to their specific clinical presentation and the current and long-term effects of caesarean section for both mother and babies. There is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of planned caesarean section for term twin pregnancy with leading cephalic presentation, except in the context of further randomised trials.

Objective: To compare outcomes at 3 months post partum for women randomised to give birth by planned caesarean section (CS) or by planned vaginal birth (VB) in the Twin Birth Study (TBS)., Design: We invited women in the TBS to complete a 3-month follow-up questionnaire., Setting: Two thousand and eight hundred and four women from 25 countries., Population: Two thousand and five hundred and seventy women (92% response rate)., Methods: Women randomised between 13 December 2003 and 4 April 2011 in the TBS completed a questionnaire and outcomes were compared using an intention-to-treat approach., Main Outcome and Measures: Breastfeeding, quality of life, depression, fatigue and urinary incontinence., Results: We found no clinically important differences between groups in any outcome. In the planned CS versus planned VB groups, breastfeeding at any time after birth was reported by 84.4% versus 86.4% (P = 0.13); the mean physical and mental Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36) quality of life scores were 51.8 versus 51.6 (P = 0.65) and 46.7 versus 46.0 (P = 0.09), respectively; the mean Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue score was 20.3 versus 20.8 (P = 0.14); the frequency of probable depression on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale was 14.0% versus 14.8% (P = 0.57); the rate of problematic urinary incontinence was 5.5% versus 6.4% (P = 0.31); and the mean Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 score was 20.5 versus 20.4 (P = 0.99). Partner relationships, including painful intercourse, were similar between the groups., Conclusion: For women with twin pregnancies randomised to planned CS compared with planned VB, outcomes at 3 months post partum did not differ. The mode of birth was not associated with problematic urinary incontinence or urinary incontinence that affected the quality of life. Contrary to previous studies, breastfeeding at 3 months was not increased with planned VB., Tweetable Abstract: Planned mode of birth for twins doesn't affect maternal depression, wellbeing, incontinence or breastfeeding., (© 2015 The Authors. BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

The incidence of twin pregnancy has increased worldwide over the past 10 years, largely as a consequence of the assisted reproductive technologies. Issues such as intrapartum monitoring and operative interventions, especially relating to the second twin, provide a unique challenge in labour and delivery. Epidemiological and cohort data suggest that twins have a three-fold higher mortality rate than singletons, and that the second twin might have a better outcome if delivered by lower segment caesarean section. The recently completed Twin Birth Study has found that planned vaginal lower segment caesarean section is not advantageous to the fetus. In the light of this large randomised-controlled trial, vaginal delivery if twin A presents by the vertex is recommended as long as guidelines for the conduct of such delivery are followed., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Twin birth is associated with a higher risk of adverse perinatal outcomes than singleton birth. It is unclear whether planned cesarean section results in a lower risk of adverse outcomes than planned vaginal delivery in twin pregnancy., Methods: We randomly assigned women between 32 weeks 0 days and 38 weeks 6 days of gestation with twin pregnancy and with the first twin in the cephalic presentation to planned cesarean section or planned vaginal delivery with cesarean only if indicated. Elective delivery was planned between 37 weeks 5 days and 38 weeks 6 days of gestation. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity, with the fetus or infant as the unit of analysis for the statistical comparison., Results: A total of 1398 women (2795 fetuses) were randomly assigned to planned cesarean delivery and 1406 women (2812 fetuses) to planned vaginal delivery. The rate of cesarean delivery was 90.7% in the planned-cesarean-delivery group and 43.8% in the planned-vaginal-delivery group. Women in the planned-cesarean-delivery group delivered earlier than did those in the planned-vaginal-delivery group (mean number of days from randomization to delivery, 12.4 vs. 13.3; P=0.04). There was no significant difference in the composite primary outcome between the planned-cesarean-delivery group and the planned-vaginal-delivery group (2.2% and 1.9%, respectively; odds ratio with planned cesarean delivery, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.77 to 1.74; P=0.49)., Conclusions: In twin pregnancy between 32 weeks 0 days and 38 weeks 6 days of gestation, with the first twin in the cephalic presentation, planned cesarean delivery did not significantly decrease or increase the risk of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity, as compared with planned vaginal delivery. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00187369; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN74420086.).

Background: Twin pregnancies are associated with increased perinatal mortality, mainly related to prematurity, but complications during birth may contribute to perinatal loss or morbidity. The option of planned caesarean section to avoid such complications must therefore be considered. On the other hand, randomised trials of other clinical interventions in the birth process to avoid problems related to labour and birth (planned caesarean section for breech, and continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring), have shown an unexpected discordance between short-term perinatal morbidity and long-term neurological outcome. The risks of caesarean section for the mother in the current and subsequent pregnancies must also be taken into account., Objectives: To determine the short- and long-term effects on mothers and their babies, of planned caesarean section for twin pregnancy., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2011)., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials comparing a policy of caesarean section with planned vaginal birth for women with twin pregnancy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two researchers independently assessed eligibility, quality and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy., Main Results: One small trial with unconfirmed allocation concealment compared caesarean section with planned vaginal birth in 60 women with vertex/non-vertex twin pregnancies. There were no differences in perinatal outcome. The trial was too small to exclude the possibility of clinically meaningful benefits of either approach. There is one additional trial currently ongoing., Authors' Conclusions: There is a lack of robust evidence to guide clinical advice regarding the method of birth for twin pregnancies. Women should be informed of possible benefits and risks of either approach, including short-term and long-term consequences for both mother and babies. Future research should aim to provide unbiased evidence, including long-term outcomes.

Objective: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether a policy of planned cesarean section or vaginal delivery is better for twins., Study Design: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1980 through May 2001 using combinations of the following terms: twin, delivery, cesarean section, vaginal birth, birth weight, and gestational age. Studies that compared planned cesarean section to planned vaginal birth for babies weighing at least 1500 g or reaching at least 32 weeks' gestation were included. We computed pooled odds ratios for perinatal or neonatal mortality, low 5-minute Apgar score, neonatal morbidity, and maternal morbidity. The infant was the unit of statistical analysis. Results were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI did not encompass 1.0., Results: We retrieved 67 articles, 63 of which were excluded. Four studies with a total of 1932 infants were included in the analysis. A low 5-minute Apgar score occurred less frequently in twins delivered by planned cesarean section (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26-0.88) principally because of a reduction among twins if twin A was in breech position (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.65). Twins delivered by planned cesarean section spent significantly longer in the hospital (mean difference, 4.01 days; 95% CI, 0.73-7.28 days). There were no significant differences in perinatal or neonatal mortality, neonatal morbidity, or maternal morbidity., Conclusion: Planned cesarean section may decrease the risk of a low 5-minute Apgar score, particularly if twin A is breech. Otherwise, there is no evidence to support planned cesarean section for twins.

Context: Epidural labor analgesia, if selected by the patient, is associated with high cesarean delivery rates. Results of randomized trials comparing rates of cesarean delivery using epidural anesthesia vs parenteral opioids are inconsistent., Objective: To review the effects of epidural vs parenteral opioid analgesia on cesarean delivery rates., Data Sources: Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE from January 1966 through January 1998, the Cochrane Database of Perinatal Trials, and relevant nonindexed journals and abstracts., Study Selection: We included all studies that randomized patients to epidural vs parenteral opioid labor analgesia., Data Extraction: Two authors independently extracted data from 10 trials enrolling 2369 patients. Odds ratios (ORs) for categorical data, weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous data, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model., Data Synthesis: The risk of cesarean delivery did not differ between patients receiving epidural (8.2%) vs parenteral opioid (5.6%) analgesia (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.81-2.76). Epidural patients had longer first (WMD, 42 minutes; 95% CI, 17-68 minutes) and second (WMD, 14 minutes; 95% CI, 5-23 minutes) labor stages. While epidural patients were more likely to have instrumented delivery (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.32-7.78), they were no more likely to have instrumented delivery for dystocia (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.31-1.49). After epidural analgesia, neonates were less likely to have low 5-minute Apgar scores (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.81) or to need naloxone (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.07-0.77). Women receiving epidural analgesia had lower pain scores during the first (WMD, -40 mm on a 100-mm scale; 95% CI, -42 to -38 mm) and second (WMD, -29 mm; 95% CI, -38 to -21 mm) stages of labor. The odds of dissatisfaction were lower with epidural analgesia (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.20-0.32)., Conclusions: Epidural labor analgesia is not associated with increased rates of instrumented vaginal delivery for dystocia or cesarean delivery. Patients receiving epidural analgesia have longer labors. Patient satisfaction and neonatal outcome are better after epidural than parenteral opioid analgesia.

Analysis of the increasing incidence of caesarean section in an English teaching hospital over a 15-year period revealed that emergency caesarean section for the diagnosis of fetal distress in labour made a major contribution to this increasing trend. A retrospective audit of a sample of these operations by the consultants of the hospital indicated that 30% of the operations were unnecessary. There were two other disturbing findings in our audit. First, there was significant disagreement between auditors in the decision whether to do a caesarean section or not. Second, and perhaps more importantly, when faced with identical information at a different time, the auditors were inconsistent in 25% of cases. The disturbing clinical situation highlighted by this study may have implications for medical jurisprudence.

Objective: To compare outcomes at 3 months post partum for women randomised to give birth by planned caesarean section (CS) or by planned vaginal birth (VB) in the Twin Birth Study (TBS).Design: We invited women in the TBS to complete a 3-month follow-up questionnaire.Setting: Two thousand and eight hundred and four women from 25 countries.Population: Two thousand and five hundred and seventy women (92% response rate).Methods: Women randomised between 13 December 2003 and 4 April 2011 in the TBS completed a questionnaire and outcomes were compared using an intention-to-treat approach.Main Outcome and Measures: Breastfeeding, quality of life, depression, fatigue and urinary incontinence.Results: We found no clinically important differences between groups in any outcome. In the planned CS versus planned VB groups, breastfeeding at any time after birth was reported by 84.4% versus 86.4% (P = 0.13); the mean physical and mental Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36) quality of life scores were 51.8 versus 51.6 (P = 0.65) and 46.7 versus 46.0 (P = 0.09), respectively; the mean Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue score was 20.3 versus 20.8 (P = 0.14); the frequency of probable depression on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale was 14.0% versus 14.8% (P = 0.57); the rate of problematic urinary incontinence was 5.5% versus 6.4% (P = 0.31); and the mean Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 score was 20.5 versus 20.4 (P = 0.99). Partner relationships, including painful intercourse, were similar between the groups.Conclusion: For women with twin pregnancies randomised to planned CS compared with planned VB, outcomes at 3 months post partum did not differ. The mode of birth was not associated with problematic urinary incontinence or urinary incontinence that affected the quality of life. Contrary to previous studies, breastfeeding at 3 months was not increased with planned VB.Tweetable Abstract: Planned mode of birth for twins doesn't affect maternal depression, wellbeing, incontinence or breastfeeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]