Mode of birth in twins: data and reflections.

Our primary objective was to compare neonatal and maternal outcomes in women with twin pregnancies, beyond 32 weeks, having a planned vaginal birth or a planned caesarean section (CS). This was a retrospective cohort study from a single tertiary centre over nine years. 534 sets of twins ≥32 + 0 weeks of gestation were included. 401 sets were planned vaginally and 133 sets were planned by CS. We compared a composite adverse perinatal outcome (perinatal mortality or serious neonatal morbidity; five minute APGAR score ≤4, neurological abnormality and need for intubation) and a composite maternal adverse outcome (major haemorrhage, trauma or infection) between the groups. There were no significant differences. Given the similarity of these results with several other larger studies of twin birth, we sought to look at reasons why there is still a rising rate of CS for twin births. We further make suggestions for keeping this rate to a sensible minimum. Impact statement What is already known on this subject? The largest randomised controlled study comparing planned vaginal birth with planned CSs for lower risk twins between 32 and 39 weeks of gestation, showed no added safety from planned CS. However, in most of the Western countries this conclusion has failed to increase the number of planned vaginal births for lower risk twins. What do the results of this study add? This observational study from a single tertiary centre provides external validation of the twin trial results in a practical day-to-day setting. It also provides insights as to how planned vaginal birth can be developed and maintained, with a key focus on safety and maternal participation in decision making. It does focus on consent and providing accurate data. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? There are good grounds to encourage vaginal birth for low-risk twin pregnancies. The trend of rising caesarean rates in low-risk twin pregnancies worldwide will erode important skills for the conduct of vaginal births without any clear benefit for mothers or babies. The current situation demands careful thought about implementing innovative training opportunities for younger obstetricians. Finally, we need intelligent responses to many non-evidence-based factors which can drive clinical practice.

Recurrence rate and outcome of postterm pregnancy, a national cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the recurrence rate of postterm delivery (gestational age at or beyond 42+0 weeks or 294 days) and to describe maternal and perinatal outcomes after previous postterm delivery. STUDY DESIGN: From the longitudinal linked Netherlands Perinatal Registry database, we selected all singleton primiparous women who delivered between 37+0 and 42+6 weeks with a subsequent singleton pregnancy from 1999 to 2007. We excluded congenital abnormalities. We compared the recurrence rate of postterm delivery and risk of antenatal fetal death in women with and without a postterm delivery in their first pregnancy. We compared perinatal outcome (composite of perinatal mortality, Apgar score <7 and birth injury) and adverse maternal outcome (composite of maternal death, abruptio placentae, PPH>1000ml and blood transfusions) between women with a recurrent and a de novo postterm second pregnancy. RESULTS: Our study population consisted of 233,327 women of whom 17,874 (7.7%) delivered postterm in the first pregnancy. In the second pregnancy, 2678 (15%) women had a recurrent postterm delivery compared to 8698 (4%) women with a de novo postterm delivery (odds ratio (OR) 4.2 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.0-4.4). Subgroup analysis in recurrent and de novo postterm delivery showed no differences in composite perinatal and composite maternal outcome (OR 1.0; CI 0.7-1.5, p=0.90 and OR 1.1, CI 0.9-1.4, p=0.16), adjusted for fetal position and mode of delivery). CONCLUSIONS: Women with a postterm delivery in the first pregnancy have a higher risk of recurrent postterm delivery. Our data suggest that there is no difference in the composite adverse perinatal outcome between recurrent and de novo postterm delivery.

Comparison of perinatal and maternal outcomes of severe preeclampsia, eclampsia, and HELLP syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To compare maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnancies complicated by severe preeclampsia, eclampsia, and HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzyme levels, and low platelets) syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Maternal and neonatal charts of 1,222 consecutive pregnancies complicated by severe preeclampsia, eclampsia, or HELLP syndrome at our maternal-perinatal unit were reviewed. Patients were divided into three groups: 903 (73.9%) with severe preeclampsia, 123 (10.1%) with eclampsia, and 196 (16.0%) with HELLP syndrome. RESULTS: The overall incidence of adverse maternal outcome was 5.9%. The rates of adverse maternal outcomes for women with HELLP syndrome and eclampsia were higher than for severe preeclampsia (13.8% vs. 11.4% vs. 3.4%, respectively) (p=0.000). Birth weight was lower in patients with HELLP syndrome than in patients with eclampsia and severe preeclampsia (p=0.005). No significant difference in neonatal morbidity was found among the three groups. Perinatal mortality tended to be higher in the severe preeclampsia group than in the HELLP syndrome and eclampsia groups (p=0.231). CONCLUSION: Pregnancies complicated by HELLP syndrome had significantly higher maternal morbidity than those with severe preeclampsia and eclampsia. Perinatal and neonatal outcomes in pregnancies complicated by severe preeclampsia, eclampsia, and HELLP syndrome were dependent on gestational age rather than being disease dependent.