Cargando…

Planned Cesarean or planned vaginal delivery for twins: secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether there is a differential benefit of planned Cesarean delivery (CD) over planned vaginal delivery (VD) in women with a twin pregnancy and the first twin in cephalic presentation, depending on prespecified baseline maternal and pregnancy characteristics, and/or gestationa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zafarmand, M. H., Goossens, S. M. T. A., Tajik, P., Bossuyt, P. M. M., Asztalos, E. V., Gardener, G. J., Willan, A. R., Roumen, F. J. M. E., Mol, B. W., Barrett, Y. (Jon)
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8048696/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31674091
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.21907
_version_ 1783679280308289536
author Zafarmand, M. H.
Goossens, S. M. T. A.
Tajik, P.
Bossuyt, P. M. M.
Asztalos, E. V.
Gardener, G. J.
Willan, A. R.
Roumen, F. J. M. E.
Mol, B. W.
Barrett, Y. (Jon)
author_facet Zafarmand, M. H.
Goossens, S. M. T. A.
Tajik, P.
Bossuyt, P. M. M.
Asztalos, E. V.
Gardener, G. J.
Willan, A. R.
Roumen, F. J. M. E.
Mol, B. W.
Barrett, Y. (Jon)
author_sort Zafarmand, M. H.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether there is a differential benefit of planned Cesarean delivery (CD) over planned vaginal delivery (VD) in women with a twin pregnancy and the first twin in cephalic presentation, depending on prespecified baseline maternal and pregnancy characteristics, and/or gestational age (GA) at delivery. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the Twin Birth Study, which included 2804 women with a twin pregnancy and the first twin (Twin A) in cephalic presentation between 32 + 0 and 38 + 6 weeks' gestation at 106 centers in 25 countries. Women were assigned randomly to either planned CD or planned VD. The main outcome measure was composite adverse perinatal outcome, defined as the occurrence of perinatal mortality or serious neonatal morbidity in at least one twin. The baseline maternal and pregnancy characteristics (markers) considered were maternal age, parity, history of CD, use of antenatal corticosteroids, estimated fetal weight (EFW) of Twin A, EFW of Twin B, > 25% difference in EFW between the twins, presentation of Twin B, chorionicity on ultrasound, method of conception, complications of pregnancy, ruptured membranes at randomization and GA at randomization. Separate logistic regression models were developed for each marker in order to model composite adverse perinatal outcome as a function of the specific marker, planned delivery mode and the interaction between these two terms. In addition, multivariable logistic regression analysis with backward variable elimination was performed separately in each arm of the trial. The association between planned mode of delivery and composite adverse perinatal outcome, according to GA at delivery, was assessed using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 2804 women initially randomized, 1391 were included in each study arm. None of the studied baseline markers was associated with a differential benefit of planned CD over planned VD in the rate of composite adverse perinatal outcome. GA at delivery was associated differentially with composite adverse perinatal outcome in the treatment arms (P for interaction < 0.001). Among pregnancies delivered at 32 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks, there was a trend towards a lower rate of composite adverse perinatal outcome in those in the planned‐VD group compared with those in planned‐CD group (29 (2.2%) vs 48 (3.6%) cases; odds ratio (OR) 0.62 (95% CI, 0.37–1.03)). In pregnancies delivered at or after 37 + 0 weeks, planned VD was associated with a significantly higher rate of composite adverse perinatal outcome, as compared with planned CD (23 (1.5%) vs 10 (0.7%) cases; OR, 2.25 (95% CI, 1.06–4.77)). CONCLUSION: The perinatal outcome of twin pregnancies with the first twin in cephalic presentation may differ depending on GA at delivery and planned mode of delivery. At 32–37 weeks, planned VD seems to be favorable, while, from around 37 weeks onwards, planned CD might be safer. The absolute risks of adverse perinatal outcomes at term are low and must be weighed against the increased maternal risks associated with planned CD. © 2019 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8048696
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80486962021-04-19 Planned Cesarean or planned vaginal delivery for twins: secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial Zafarmand, M. H. Goossens, S. M. T. A. Tajik, P. Bossuyt, P. M. M. Asztalos, E. V. Gardener, G. J. Willan, A. R. Roumen, F. J. M. E. Mol, B. W. Barrett, Y. (Jon) Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Original Papers OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether there is a differential benefit of planned Cesarean delivery (CD) over planned vaginal delivery (VD) in women with a twin pregnancy and the first twin in cephalic presentation, depending on prespecified baseline maternal and pregnancy characteristics, and/or gestational age (GA) at delivery. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the Twin Birth Study, which included 2804 women with a twin pregnancy and the first twin (Twin A) in cephalic presentation between 32 + 0 and 38 + 6 weeks' gestation at 106 centers in 25 countries. Women were assigned randomly to either planned CD or planned VD. The main outcome measure was composite adverse perinatal outcome, defined as the occurrence of perinatal mortality or serious neonatal morbidity in at least one twin. The baseline maternal and pregnancy characteristics (markers) considered were maternal age, parity, history of CD, use of antenatal corticosteroids, estimated fetal weight (EFW) of Twin A, EFW of Twin B, > 25% difference in EFW between the twins, presentation of Twin B, chorionicity on ultrasound, method of conception, complications of pregnancy, ruptured membranes at randomization and GA at randomization. Separate logistic regression models were developed for each marker in order to model composite adverse perinatal outcome as a function of the specific marker, planned delivery mode and the interaction between these two terms. In addition, multivariable logistic regression analysis with backward variable elimination was performed separately in each arm of the trial. The association between planned mode of delivery and composite adverse perinatal outcome, according to GA at delivery, was assessed using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 2804 women initially randomized, 1391 were included in each study arm. None of the studied baseline markers was associated with a differential benefit of planned CD over planned VD in the rate of composite adverse perinatal outcome. GA at delivery was associated differentially with composite adverse perinatal outcome in the treatment arms (P for interaction < 0.001). Among pregnancies delivered at 32 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks, there was a trend towards a lower rate of composite adverse perinatal outcome in those in the planned‐VD group compared with those in planned‐CD group (29 (2.2%) vs 48 (3.6%) cases; odds ratio (OR) 0.62 (95% CI, 0.37–1.03)). In pregnancies delivered at or after 37 + 0 weeks, planned VD was associated with a significantly higher rate of composite adverse perinatal outcome, as compared with planned CD (23 (1.5%) vs 10 (0.7%) cases; OR, 2.25 (95% CI, 1.06–4.77)). CONCLUSION: The perinatal outcome of twin pregnancies with the first twin in cephalic presentation may differ depending on GA at delivery and planned mode of delivery. At 32–37 weeks, planned VD seems to be favorable, while, from around 37 weeks onwards, planned CD might be safer. The absolute risks of adverse perinatal outcomes at term are low and must be weighed against the increased maternal risks associated with planned CD. © 2019 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2021-04-01 2021-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8048696/ /pubmed/31674091 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.21907 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Papers
Zafarmand, M. H.
Goossens, S. M. T. A.
Tajik, P.
Bossuyt, P. M. M.
Asztalos, E. V.
Gardener, G. J.
Willan, A. R.
Roumen, F. J. M. E.
Mol, B. W.
Barrett, Y. (Jon)
Planned Cesarean or planned vaginal delivery for twins: secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial
title Planned Cesarean or planned vaginal delivery for twins: secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial
title_full Planned Cesarean or planned vaginal delivery for twins: secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Planned Cesarean or planned vaginal delivery for twins: secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Planned Cesarean or planned vaginal delivery for twins: secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial
title_short Planned Cesarean or planned vaginal delivery for twins: secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial
title_sort planned cesarean or planned vaginal delivery for twins: secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial
topic Original Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8048696/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31674091
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.21907
work_keys_str_mv AT zafarmandmh plannedcesareanorplannedvaginaldeliveryfortwinssecondaryanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT goossenssmta plannedcesareanorplannedvaginaldeliveryfortwinssecondaryanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT tajikp plannedcesareanorplannedvaginaldeliveryfortwinssecondaryanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT bossuytpmm plannedcesareanorplannedvaginaldeliveryfortwinssecondaryanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT asztalosev plannedcesareanorplannedvaginaldeliveryfortwinssecondaryanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT gardenergj plannedcesareanorplannedvaginaldeliveryfortwinssecondaryanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT willanar plannedcesareanorplannedvaginaldeliveryfortwinssecondaryanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT roumenfjme plannedcesareanorplannedvaginaldeliveryfortwinssecondaryanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT molbw plannedcesareanorplannedvaginaldeliveryfortwinssecondaryanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT barrettyjon plannedcesareanorplannedvaginaldeliveryfortwinssecondaryanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT plannedcesareanorplannedvaginaldeliveryfortwinssecondaryanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrial