Balancing key stakeholder priorities and ethical principles to design a trial comparing intervention or expectant management for early-onset selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancy: FERN qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: As part of the FERN feasibility study, this qualitative research aimed to explore parents' and clinicians' views on the acceptability, feasibility and design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of active intervention versus expectant management in monochorionic (MC) diamniotic twin pregnancies with early-onset (prior to 24 weeks) selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR). Interventions could include laser treatment or selective termination which could lead to the death or serious disability of one or both twins. DESIGN: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with parents and clinicians. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and considered against the Principles of Biomedical Ethics. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: We interviewed 19 UK parents experiencing (six mothers, two partners) or had recently experienced (eight mothers, three partners) early-onset sFGR in MC twin pregnancy and 14 specialist clinicians from the UK and Europe. RESULTS: Participants viewed the proposed RCT as 'ethically murky' because they believed that the management of sFGR in MC twin pregnancy should be individualised according to the type and severity of sFGR. Clinicians prioritised the gestational age, size, decrease in growth velocity, access to the placental vessels and acceptability of intervention for parents. Discussions and decision-making about selective termination appeared to cause long-term harm (maleficence). The most important outcome for parents and clinicians was 'live birth'. For clinicians, this was the live birth of at least one twin. For parents, this meant the live birth of both twins, even if this meant that their babies had neurodevelopmental impairment or disabilities. CONCLUSIONS: All three pregnancy management approaches for sFGR in MC twin pregnancy carry risks and benefits, and the ultimate goal for parents is to receive individualised care to achieve the best possible outcome for both twins. An RCT was not acceptable to parents or clinicians or seen as ethically appropriate. Alternative study designs should be considered to answer this important research question.

FERN: is it possible to conduct a randomised controlled trial of intervention or expectant management for early-onset selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancy - protocol for a prospective multicentre mixed-methods feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR) in monochorionic twin pregnancy, defined as an estimated fetal weight (EFW) of one twin <10th centile and EFW discordance ≥25%, is associated with stillbirth and neurodisability for both twins. The condition poses unique management difficulties: on the one hand, continuation of the pregnancy carries a risk of death of the smaller twin, with a high risk of co-twin demise (40%) or co-twin neurological sequelae (30%). On the other, early delivery to prevent the death of the smaller twin may expose the larger twin to prematurity, with the associated risks of long-term physical, emotional and financial costs from neurodisability, such as cerebral palsy.When there is severe and early sFGR, before viability, delivery is not an option. In this scenario, there are currently three main management options: (1) expectant management, (2) selective termination of the smaller twin and (3) placental laser photocoagulation of interconnecting vessels. These management options have never been investigated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). The best management option is unknown, and there are many challenges for a potential RCT. These include the rarity of the condition resulting in a small number of eligible pregnancies, uncertainty about whether pregnant women will agree to participate in such a trial and whether they will agree to be randomised to expectant management or active fetal intervention, and the challenges of robust and long-term outcome measures. Therefore, the main objective of the FERN study is to assess the feasibility of conducting an RCT of active intervention vs expectant management in monochorionic twin pregnancies with early-onset (prior to 24 weeks) sFGR. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The FERN study is a prospective mixed-methods feasibility study. The primary objective is to recommend whether an RCT of intervention vs expectant management of sFGR in monochorionic twin pregnancy is feasible by exploring women's preference, clinician's preference, current practice and equipoise and numbers of cases. To achieve this, we propose three distinct work packages (WPs). WP1: A Prospective UK Multicentre Study, WP2A: a Qualitative Study Exploring Parents' and Clinicians' Views and WP3: a Consensus Development to Determine Feasibility of a Trial. Eligible pregnancies will be recruited to WP1 and WP2, which will run concurrently. The results of these two WPs will be used in WP3 to develop consensus on a future definitive study. The duration of the study will be 53 months, composed of 10 months of setup, 39 months of recruitment, 42 months of data collection, and 5 months of data analysis, report writing and recommendations. The pragmatic sample size for WP1 is 100 monochorionic twin pregnancies with sFGR. For WP2, interviews will be conducted until data saturation and sample variance are achieved, that is, when no new major themes are being discovered. Based on previous similar pilot studies, this is anticipated to be approximately 15-25 interviews in both the parent and clinician groups. Engagement of at least 50 UK clinicians is planned for WP3. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received ethical approval from the Health Research Authority (HRA) South West-Cornwall and Plymouth Ethics Committee (REC reference 20/SW/0156, IRAS ID 286337). All participating sites will undergo site-specific approvals for assessment of capacity and capability by the HRA. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. The results from the FERN project will be used to inform future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study is included in the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN16879394) and the NIHR Central Portfolio Management System (CPMS), CRN: Reproductive Health and Childbirth Specialty (UKCRN reference 47201).

Diagnosis and management of selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancies: A cross-sectional international survey.

OBJECTIVE: To identify current practices in the management of selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR) in monochorionic diamniotic (MCDA) twin pregnancies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: International. POPULATION: Clinicians involved in the management of MCDA twin pregnancies with sFGR. METHODS: A structured, self-administered survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical practices and attitudes to diagnostic criteria and management strategies. RESULTS: Overall, 62.8% (113/180) of clinicians completed the survey; of which, 66.4% (75/113) of the respondents reported that they would use an estimated fetal weight (EFW) of <10th centile for the smaller twin and an inter-twin EFW discordance of >25% for the diagnosis of sFGR. For early-onset type I sFGR, 79.8% (75/94) of respondents expressed that expectant management would be their routine practice. On the other hand, for early-onset type II and type III sFGR, 19.3% (17/88) and 35.7% (30/84) of respondents would manage these pregnancies expectantly, whereas 71.6% (63/88) and 57.1% (48/84) would refer these pregnancies to a fetal intervention centre or would offer fetal intervention for type II and type III cases, respectively. Moreover, 39.0% (16/41) of the respondents would consider fetoscopic laser surgery (FLS) for early-onset type I sFGR, whereas 41.5% (17/41) would offer either FLS or selective feticide, and 12.2% (5/41) would exclusively offer selective feticide. For early-onset type II and type III sFGR cases, 25.9% (21/81) and 31.4% (22/70) would exclusively offer FLS, respectively, whereas 33.3% (27/81) and 32.9% (23/70) would exclusively offer selective feticide. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in clinician practices and attitudes towards the management of early-onset sFGR in MCDA twin pregnancies, especially for type II and type III cases, highlighting the need for high-level evidence to guide management.

Randomised placebo-controlled trial of antenatal corticosteroids for planned birth in twins (STOPPIT-3): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the STOPPIT-3 study is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) prior to planned birth of twins in a multicentre placebo-controlled trial with internal pilot. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will comprise a multicentre, double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in at least 50 UK obstetric units. The target population is 1552 women with a twin pregnancy and a planned birth between 35 and 38+6 weeks' gestation recruited from antenatal clinics. Women will be randomised to Dexamethasone Phosphate (24 mg) or saline administered via two intramuscular injections 24 hours apart, 24-120 hours prior to scheduled birth. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is need for respiratory support within 72 hours of birth. Secondary and safety outcomes will be included. Cognitive and language development at age 2 years will be assessed in a subset of participants using the Parent report of Children's Abilities-Revised questionnaire. We will also determine the cost effectiveness of the treatment with ACS compared with placebo. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: STOPPIT-3 has been funded and approved by the National Institute of Healthcare Research. It has been approved by the West Midlands Research Ethics Committee (22/WM/0018). The results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentation and will also be communicated to the public via links with charity partners and social media. TRIAL SPONSOR: The University of Edinburgh and Lothian Health Board ACCORD, The Queen's Medical Research Institute, 47 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4TJ. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN59959611.

Assisted venous drainage on cardiopulmonary bypass for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: is it necessary, useful or desirable?

Assisted venous drainage (AVD) is considered an essential component of the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) circuit for minimal access aortic valve replacement (mAVR). The rationale/necessity for AVD in every patient has not been fully elucidated. Data from consecutive patients undergoing isolated first-time mAVR by a single surgeon from March 2006 to October 2008 was prospectively collected. All cases were cannulated centrally. Venous drainage was by a three-stage cannula (Medtronic MC2X) via the right atrial appendage. AVD was utilised intraoperatively at the discretion of the perfusionist and/or surgeon to maintain the required flow rate. Pre- and perioperative data were compared between the two groups. Fifty-seven patients underwent mAVR. Twenty-nine did not require assistance (AVD-), 28 did (AVD+). There were no significant differences between the two groups' age, sex distribution, body mass index and risk stratification data. Patients who required AVD had significantly higher body surface areas (BSAs) [1.93 m(2) (1.56-2.46) vs. 1.79 m(2) (1.41-2.26), P=0.03] and consequent higher CPB flow required [4.62 l/min (3.74-5.90) vs. 4.29 l/min (3.38-5.42), P=0.03]. Patients who required AVD tended to have longer ischaemic times [79.5 min (48-135) vs. 69 min (47-126), P=0.06]. AVD during mAVR is not necessary in every patient. We found it to be necessary in patients with higher BSA (consequently requiring a higher flow rate on CPB).