Perinatal Outcomes of Small for Gestational Age in Twin Pregnancies: Twin vs. Singleton Charts.
birth weight
chorionicity-specific
estimated fetal weight
fetal growth restriction
reference charts
singleton
small for gestational age
twin pregnancy
ultrasound
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Feb 2021
08 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
01
01
2021
revised:
31
01
2021
accepted:
05
02
2021
entrez:
11
2
2021
pubmed:
12
2
2021
medline:
12
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Twin pregnancies are commonly assessed using singleton growth and birth weight reference charts. This practice has led to a significant number of twins labelled as small for gestational age (SGA), causing unnecessary interventions and increased risk of iatrogenic preterm birth. However, the use of twin-specific charts remains controversial. This study aims to assess whether twin-specific estimated fetal weight (EFW) and birth weight (BW) charts are more predictive of adverse outcomes compared to singleton charts. Centiles of EFW and BW were calculated using previously published singleton and twin charts. Categorical data were compared using Chi-square or McNemar tests. The study included 1740 twin pregnancies, with the following perinatal adverse outcomes recorded: perinatal death, preterm birth <34 weeks, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) and admissions to the neonatal unit (NNU). Twin-specific charts identified prenatally and postnatally a smaller proportion of infants as SGA compared to singleton charts. However, twin charts showed a higher percentage of adverse neonatal outcomes in SGA infants than singleton charts. For example, perinatal death (SGA 7.2% vs. appropriate for gestational age (AGA) 2%,
Identifiants
pubmed: 33567545
pii: jcm10040643
doi: 10.3390/jcm10040643
pmc: PMC7916041
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;45(3):301-7
pubmed: 25052857
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jul;52(1):44-51
pubmed: 29696704
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 May;216(5):514.e1-514.e17
pubmed: 28065816
J Ultrasound Med. 2017 Apr;36(4):793-798
pubmed: 28072479
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Nov;48(5):602-606
pubmed: 27854393
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2017;41(2):100-107
pubmed: 27622538
J Clin Med. 2020 Oct 13;9(10):
pubmed: 33066110
Am J Clin Nutr. 2018 Oct 1;108(4):775-783
pubmed: 30321279
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 May;216(5):431-433
pubmed: 28477719
Pregnancy Hypertens. 2018 Jul;13:291-310
pubmed: 29803330
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1991 Sep;36(1):17-22
pubmed: 1683296
Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Feb;111(2 Pt 1):301-8
pubmed: 18238966
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Feb;53(2):193-199
pubmed: 29660172
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jun;210(6):578.e1-9
pubmed: 24607757
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Aug;38(2):130-3
pubmed: 21400626
Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Jun;91(6):917-24
pubmed: 9610996
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Feb;47(2):247-63
pubmed: 26577371
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Sep;221(3):251.e1-251.e8
pubmed: 31029663
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug;213(2):224.e1-9
pubmed: 25899626
Obstet Gynecol. 2014 May;123(5):1118-1132
pubmed: 24785876
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug;213(2):222.e1-222.e10
pubmed: 25731693
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb 4;:
pubmed: 33538373
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jun;121(6):1318-1326
pubmed: 23812469
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Mar;41(1):114-25
pubmed: 9504230
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Sep;6(3):168-74
pubmed: 8521065
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1975 Sep;82(9):702-10
pubmed: 1182090
Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Nov;88(5):855-8
pubmed: 8885927
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jun;41(6):643-8
pubmed: 23355123
J Clin Med. 2020 Aug 05;9(8):
pubmed: 32764227
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Aug;215(2):221.e1-221.e16
pubmed: 27143399