Search

Objective: To compare the risk of intrapartum cesarean delivery (CD) between patients with twin and singleton pregnancies undergoing a trial of labor and identify risk factors for intrapartum CD in twin pregnancies., Methods: The present study was a retrospective cohort study of patients with a twin or singleton pregnancy who underwent a trial of labor at ≥34 0/7 weeks in a single center (2015-2022). The primary outcome was the rate of intrapartum CD. In twin pregnancies, this outcome was limited to CD of both twins. The association of plurality with intrapartum CD was estimated using multivariable Poisson regression., Results: A total of 20 754 patients met the study criteria, 669 of whom had a twin pregnancy. Patients with twins had a greater risk of intrapartum CD (of both twins) than those with singleton pregnancies (22.1% vs 15.9%, respectively; aRR 1.38 [95% CI: 1.15-1.66]), primarily due to a greater risk of failure to progress. In addition, 4.1% of the twin pregnancies had a CD for the second twin, resulting in an overall CD rate in twin pregnancies of 26.2%. Variables associated with intrapartum CD in twin pregnancies included nulliparity (aOR 3.50, 95% CI: 2.34-5.25), birthweight discordance >20% (aOR 2.47, 95% CI: 1.27-4.78), and labor induction (aOR 1.64, 95% CI: 1.07-2.53). The rate of intrapartum CD was highest when all three risk factors were present (67% [95% CI: 41%-87%])., Conclusion: Twin pregnancies are associated with a greater risk of intrapartum CD than singleton pregnancies. Information on the individualized risk of intrapartum CD may be valuable when counseling patients with twins regarding mode of delivery., (© 2024 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.)

Background: One of the controversies regarding the management of twin gestations relates to the mode of delivery. Currently, counseling regarding the mode of delivery and the chance of successful vaginal twin delivery is based on the average risk for intrapartum cesarean delivery in the general population of twin pregnancies. Decision support tools that provide an individualized risk for intrapartum cesarean delivery based on the unique characteristics of each patient can improve counseling and decision-making regarding the choice of mode of delivery in twin pregnancies., Objective: This study aimed to develop and validate a prediction model to determine the risk for intrapartum cesarean delivery in twin pregnancies., Study Design: In this secondary analysis of the Twin Birth Study, a multicenter randomized controlled trial, we considered the subgroup of individuals who underwent a trial of vaginal delivery. Candidate predictors included maternal age, parity, previous cesarean delivery, conception method, chorionicity, diabetes and hypertension in pregnancy, gestational age at birth, the onset of labor, presentation of the second twin, sonographic fetal weight estimation, and fetal sex. The co-primary outcomes were overall intrapartum cesarean delivery and cesarean delivery of the second twin. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the probability of the study outcomes. Model performance was evaluated using measures of discrimination (the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve), calibration, and predictive accuracy. Internal validation was performed using the bootstrap resampling technique., Results: A total of 1221 individuals met the study criteria. The rate of overall intrapartum cesarean delivery and cesarean delivery for the second twin was 25.4% and 5.7%, respectively. The most contributory predictor variables were nulliparity, term birth (≥37 weeks), a noncephalic presentation of the second twin, previous cesarean delivery, and labor induction. The models for overall intrapartum cesarean delivery and cesarean delivery of the second twin had good overall discriminatory accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.720; 95% confidence interval, 0.688-0.752 and 0.736; 95% confidence interval, 0.669-0.803, respectively) and calibration (as illustrated by the calibration plot and Brier scores of 0.168; 95% confidence interval, 0.156-0.180 and 0.051; 95% confidence interval, 0.040-0.061, respectively). The models achieved good specificity (66.7% and 81.6%, respectively), high negative predictive value (86.0% and 96.9%, respectively), and moderate sensitivity (68.1% and 57.1%, respectively)., Conclusion: The prediction models developed in this study may assist care providers in counseling individuals regarding the optimal timing and mode of delivery in twin pregnancies by providing individualized estimates of the risk for intrapartum cesarean delivery., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare neonatal outcomes of women with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥35 kg/m 2 who underwent a trial of labour with those of women who underwent a planned primary caesarean section (CS)., Design: A retrospective cohort study of births between April 2012 and March 2014., Setting: A provincial database: Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario, Canada., Population: A cohort of 8752 women with a BMI of ≥35 kg/m 2 who had a singleton birth at 38-42 weeks of gestation., Methods: Neonatal outcomes were compared between women who underwent a trial of labour (with either a successful vaginal birth or intrapartum CS) and those who underwent a planned CS., Main Outcome Measure: A composite of any of the following outcomes: intrapartum neonatal death, neonatal intensive care unit admission, 5-minute Apgar score of <7 or umbilical artery pH of <7.1., Results: During the study period, 8433 (96.4%) women had a trial of labour and 319 (3.6%) had a planned CS. Intrapartum CS was performed in 1644 (19.5%) cases. There was no association between planned mode of delivery and the primary outcome (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59-1.07). The primary outcome was lower among women who had a successful trial of labour (aOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.91) and was higher among women who had a failed trial of labour (aOR 1.74, 95% CI 1.21-2.48), compared with women who underwent a planned CS., Conclusions: In women with a BMI of ≥35 kg/m 2 at a gestational age of 38-42 weeks, neonatal outcomes are comparable between planned vaginal delivery and planned CS, although a failed trial of labour is at risk of adverse neonatal outcome., Tweetable Abstract: Neonatal outcomes are not affected by planned mode of delivery in women who are obese, with a BMI of ≥35 kg/m 2 ., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the Twin Birth Study, women at 32 0/7 -38 6/7 weeks of gestation, in whom the first twin was in cephalic presentation, were randomized to planned vaginal delivery or cesarean section. The study found no significant differences in neonatal or maternal outcomes in the two planned mode of delivery groups. We aimed to compare neonatal and maternal outcomes of twin gestations without spontaneous onset of labor, who underwent induction of labor or pre-labor cesarean section as the intervention of induction may affect outcomes., Methods: In this secondary analysis of the Twin Birth Study we compared those who had an induction of labor with those who had a pre-labor cesarean section. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity. Secondary outcome was a composite of maternal morbidity and mortality., Trial Registration: NCT00187369., Results: Of the 2804 women included in the Twin Birth Study, a total of 1347 (48%) women required a delivery before a spontaneous onset of labor occurred: 568 (42%) in the planned vaginal delivery arm and 779 (58%) in the planned cesarean arm. Induction of labor was attempted in 409 (30%), and 938 (70%) had a pre-labor cesarean section. The rate of intrapartum cesarean section in the induction of labor group was 41.3%. The rate of the primary outcome was comparable between the pre-labor cesarean section group and induction of labor group (1.65% vs. 1.97%; p = 0.61; OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.43-1.62). The maternal composite outcome was found to be lower with pre-labor cesarean section compared to induction of labor (7.25% vs. 11.25%; p = 0.01; OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.41-0.91)., Conclusion: In women with twin gestation between 32 0/7 -38 6/7 weeks of gestation, induction of labor and pre-labor cesarean section have similar neonatal outcomes. Pre-labor cesarean section is associated with favorable maternal outcomes which differs from the overall Twin Birth Study results. These data may be used to better counsel women with twin gestation who are faced with the decision of interventional delivery.

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., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Twin Birth Study, a multicenter randomized controlled trial, found no differences in neonatal outcomes in women with twins randomized to planned cesarean or vaginal delivery. Nevertheless, women who present in spontaneous labor might expect a better outcome following a trial of vaginal delivery than undergoing cesarean delivery. In this secondary analysis, we aimed to compare neonatal outcomes of women who presented in spontaneous labor in the two arms of the Twin Birth Study., Methods: Women in whom the first twin was in the cephalic presentation were randomized between 32 + 0 and 38 + 6 weeks to planned vaginal delivery or cesarean. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity., Results: Of the 2804 women included in the Twin Birth Study, 823 women in the planned vaginal delivery arm and 612 in the planned cesarean arm presented in spontaneous labor. Although the odds ratio favored planned vaginal delivery, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of primary outcome between the vaginal delivery and cesarean arms (1.8% vs 2.7%, respectively; P = 0.16; OR 1.49; 95% CI, 0.87-2.55). Similarly, the rates of the individual components of the primary outcome and of maternal adverse outcome were similar between the two arms., Conclusion: In women with twins who present in spontaneous labor between 32 + 0 and 38 + 6 weeks' gestation, where the first twin is cephalic, a policy of planned vaginal delivery or cesarean is not associated with significant differences in neonatal or maternal outcomes., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

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: To compare neonatal outcomes of women with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥35 kg/m2 who underwent a trial of labour with those of women who underwent a planned primary caesarean section (CS). Design: A retrospective cohort study of births between April 2012 and March 2014. Setting: A provincial database: Better Outcomes Registry & Network (BORN) Ontario, Canada. Population: A cohort of 8752 women with a BMI of ≥35 kg/m2 who had a singleton birth at 38–42 weeks of gestation. Methods: Neonatal outcomes were compared between women who underwent a trial of labour (with either a successful vaginal birth or intrapartum CS) and those who underwent a planned CS. Main outcome measure: A composite of any of the following outcomes: intrapartum neonatal death, neonatal intensive care unit admission, 5‐minute Apgar score of <7 or umbilical artery pH of <7.1. Results: During the study period, 8433 (96.4%) women had a trial of labour and 319 (3.6%) had a planned CS. Intrapartum CS was performed in 1644 (19.5%) cases. There was no association between planned mode of delivery and the primary outcome (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59–1.07). The primary outcome was lower among women who had a successful trial of labour (aOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50–0.91) and was higher among women who had a failed trial of labour (aOR 1.74, 95% CI 1.21–2.48), compared with women who underwent a planned CS. Conclusions: In women with a BMI of ≥35 kg/m2 at a gestational age of 38–42 weeks, neonatal outcomes are comparable between planned vaginal delivery and planned CS, although a failed trial of labour is at risk of adverse neonatal outcome. Neonatal outcomes are not affected by planned mode of delivery in women who are obese, with a BMI of ≥35 kg/m2. Neonatal outcomes are not affected by planned mode of delivery in women with obesity BMI ≥35 kg/m2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]