The Diagnosis and Detection of Fetal Growth Restriction in Monochorionic Twin Pregnancies

doi:10.1017/9781108564434.037

Chapter 36 - The Diagnosis and Detection of Fetal Growth Restriction in Monochorionic Twin Pregnancies

from Complications of Monochorionic Multiple Pregnancy: Fetal Growth Restriction in Monochorionic Twins

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 October 2019

Rosemary Townsend and

Edited by

Anthony Johnson and

Mark D. Kilby: Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Anthony Johnson: Affiliation:
University of Texas Medical School at Houston
Dick Oepkes: Affiliation:
Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Although not all small babies are truly growth restricted, the fetus that struggles to reach its full growth potential is at substantial risk of fetal and neonatal complications, even more so if not identified antenatally as a faltering fetus. As with most pregnancy complications, the risk of fetal growth restriction (FGR) is increased in twin pregnancies, and more so in monochorionic twin pregnancies. Around 19.7% of monochorionic twin pregnancies are complicated by FGR, compared with only 10.5% of dichorionic twin pregnancies [1]. They also experience a higher incidence of perinatal mortality associated with growth restriction – 75.1/1000 compared with 33.0/1000 [2].

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Fetal Therapy
Scientific Basis and Critical Appraisal of Clinical Benefits
, pp. 384 - 391

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108564434.037 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Coutinho Nunes, F, Domingues, AP, Vide Tavares, M, Belo, A, Ferreira, C, Fonseca, E, et al. Monochorionic versus dichorionic twins: are obstetric outcomes always different? J Obstet Gynaecol (Lahore). 2016; 36: 598–601.Google Scholar

Glinianaia, SV, Obeysekera, MA, Sturgiss, S, Bell, R. Stillbirth and neonatal mortality in monochorionic and dichorionic twins: a population-based study. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26: 2549–57.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Khalil, A, Rodgers, M, Baschat, A, Bhide, A, Gratacos, E, Hecher, K, et al. ISUOG practice guidelines: role of ultrasound in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 47: 247–63.Google Scholar

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2011). Multiple pregnancy: antenatal care for twin and triplet pregnancies. Clinical Guideline CG129. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg129 Google Scholar

Morin, L, Lim, K, Bly, S, Butt, K, Cargill, YM, Davies, G, et al. Ultrasound in twin pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada. 2011; 33: 643–56.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics, Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine. Practice bulletin 169: multifetal gestations: twin, triplet and higher-order multifetal pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128: e131–46.Google Scholar

Chervenak, FA, Skupski, DW, Romero, R, Myers, MK, Smith-Levitin, M, Rosenwaks, Z, et al. How accurate is fetal biometry in the assessment of fetal age? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 178: 678–87.Google Scholar

Khalil, A, D’Antonio, F, Dias, T, Cooper, D, Thilaganathan, B, Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK). Ultrasound estimation of birth weight in twin pregnancy: comparison of biometry algorithms in the STORK multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 44: 210–20.Google Scholar

Kalafat, E, Sebghati, M, Thilaganathan, B, Khalil, A, Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK). Predictive accuracy of the Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK) chorionicity-specific twin growth charts for stillbirth: a validation study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 53: 193–9.Google Scholar

Stirrup, OT, Khalil, A, D’Antonio, F, Thilaganathan, B, Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK). Fetal growth reference ranges in twin pregnancy: analysis of the Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK) multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 45: 301–7.Google Scholar

Gielen, M, Lindsey, PJ, Derom, C, Loos, RJF, Souren, NY, Paulussen, ADC, et al. Twin-specific intrauterine ‘growth’ charts based on cross-sectional birthweight data. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2008; 11: 224–35.Google Scholar

Odibo, AO, Cahill, AG, Goetzinger, KR, Harper, LM, Tuuli, MG, Macones, GA. Customized growth charts for twin gestations to optimize identification of small-for-gestational age fetuses at risk of intrauterine fetal death. Ultrasound Obs Gynecol. 2013; 41: 637–42.Google Scholar

Khalil, AA, Khan, N, Bowe, S, Familiari, A, Papageorghiou, A, Bhide, A, et al. Discordance in fetal biometry and Doppler are independent predictors of the risk of perinatal loss in twin pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213: 222. e1–222. e10.Google Scholar

Harper, LM, Weis, MA, Odibo, AO, Roehl, KA, Macones, GA, Cahill, AG. Significance of growth discordance in appropriately grown twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 208: 1–5.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Chauhan, SP, Shields, D, Parker, D, Sanderson, M, Scardo, JA, Magann, EF. Detecting fetal growth restriction or discordant growth in twin gestations stratified by placental chorionicity. J Reprod Med. 2004; 49: 279–84.Google Scholar

Lewi, L, Jani, J, Blickstein, I, Huber, A, Gucciardo, L, Van Mieghem, T, et al. The outcome of monochorionic diamniotic twin gestations in the era of invasive fetal therapy: a prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199: 514. e1–8.Google Scholar

Gratacós, E, Ortiz, JU, Martinez, JM. A systematic approach to the differential diagnosis and management of the complications of monochorionic twin pregnancies. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2012; 32: 145–55.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lewi, L, Lewi, P, Diemert, A, Jani, J, Gucciardo, L, Van Mieghem, T, et al. The role of ultrasound examination in the first trimester and at 16 weeks’ gestation to predict fetal complications in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199: 493. e1–493. e7.Google Scholar

Mackie, FL, Hall, MJ, Morris, RK, Kilby, MD. Early prognostic factors of outcomes in monochorionic twin pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 219: 436–46.Google Scholar

Mackie, FL, Morris, RK, Kilby, MD. The prediction, diagnosis and management of complications in monochorionic twin pregnancies: the OMMIT (Optimal Management of Monochorionic Twins) study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017; 17: 153.Google Scholar

Cambiaso, O, Zhao, D-P, Abasolo, JI, Aiello, HA, Oepkes, D, Lopriore, E, et al. Discordance of cord insertions as a predictor of discordant fetal growth in monochorionic twins. Placenta. 2016; 47: 81–5.Google Scholar

Memmo, A, Dias, T, Mahsud-Dornan, S, Papageorghiou, AT, Bhide, A, Thilaganathan, B. Prediction of selective fetal growth restriction and twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome in monochorionic twins. BJOG. 2012; 119: 417–21.Google Scholar

D’Antonio, F, Khalil, A, Pagani, G, Papageorghiou, AT, Bhide, A, Thilaganathan, B. Crown-rump length discordance and adverse perinatal outcome in twin pregnancies: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 44: 138–46.Google Scholar

D’Antonio, F, Khalil, A, Mantovani, E, Thilaganathan, B, Hamid, R, Gandhi, H, et al. Embryonic growth discordance and early fetal loss: the STORK multiple pregnancy cohort and systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28: 2621–7.Google Scholar

Kagan, KO, Gazzoni, A, Sepulveda-Gonzalez, G, Sotiriadis, A, Nicolaides, KH. Discordance in nuchal translucency thickness in the prediction of severe twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 29: 527–32.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Queirós, A, Blickstein, I, Valdoleiros, S, Felix, N, Cohen, A, Simões, T. Prediction of birth weight discordance from fetal weight estimations at 21–24 weeks’ scans in monochorionic and dichorionic twins. J Matern Neonatal Med. 2017; 30: 1944–7.Google Scholar

Breathnach, FM, McAuliffe, FM, Geary, M, Daly, S, Higgins, JR, Dornan, J, et al. Definition of intertwin birth weight discordance. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118: 94–103.Google Scholar

Bekhit, MT, Greenwood, PA, Warren, R, Aarons, E, Jauniaux, E. In utero treatment of severe fetal anaemia due to parvovirus B19 in one fetus in a twin pregnancy—a case report and literature review. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2009; 25: 153–7.Google Scholar

De la Calle, M, Baquero, F, Rodriguez, R, González, M, Fernández, A, Omeñaca, F, et al. Successful treatment of intrauterine cytomegalovirus infection with an intraventricular cyst in a dichorionic diamniotic twin gestation using cytomegalovirus immunoglobulin. J Matern Neonatal Med. 2017; 6: 1–4.Google Scholar

Yinon, Y, Yagel, S, Tepperberg-Dikawa, M, Feldman, B, Schiff, E, Lipitz, S. Prenatal diagnosis and outcome of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in twin pregnancies. BJOG. 2006; 113: 295–300.Google Scholar

Linden, VV, Linden, HV Jr., Leal, MC, Rolim, ELF, Linden, AV, Aragão, MFVV, et al. Discordant clinical outcomes of congenital Zika virus infection in twin pregnancies. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2017; 75: 381–6.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hall, JG. Twinning. Lancet. 2003; 362: 735–43.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

McFadden, P, Smithson, S, Massaro, R, Huang, J, Prado, GT, Shertz, W. Monozygotic Twins Discordant for Trisomy 13. Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2017; 20: 340–7.Google Scholar

Lu, J, Cheng, YKY, Ting, YH, Law, KM, Leung, TY. Pitfalls in assessing chorioamnionicity: novel observations and literature review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 219: 242–54.Google Scholar

Hillman, SC, Morris, RK, Kilby, MD. Co-twin prognosis after single fetal death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118: 928–40.Google Scholar

Gaerty, K, Greer, RM, Kumar, S. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perinatal outcomes after radiofrequency ablation and bipolar cord occlusion in monochorionic pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213: 637–43.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Lewi, L, Deprest, J, Hecher, K, Sebire, NJ, Snijders, RJ, Hughes, K, et al. The vascular anastomoses in monochorionic twin pregnancies and their clinical consequences. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 208: 19–30.Google Scholar

Kalafat, E, Thilaganathan, B, Papageorghiou, A, Bhide, A, Khalil, A. The significance of placental cord insertion site in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 52: 378–84.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Van Winden, KR, Quintero, RA, Kontopoulos, EV, Korst, LM, Llanes, A, Chmait, RH. Decreased total placental mass found in twin-twin transfusion syndrome gestations with selective growth restriction. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2016; 40: 116–22.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Fox, N, Rebarber, A, Klauser, C, Roman, A, Saltzman, D. Intrauterine growth restriction in twin pregnancies: incidence and associated risk factors. Am J Perinatol. 2011; 28: 267–72.Google Scholar

Khalil, A, Beune, I, Hecher, K, Wynia, K, Ganzevoort, W, Reed, K, et al. Consensus definition and essential reporting parameters of selective fetal growth restriction in twin pregnancy: a Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 53: 47–54.Google Scholar

Inklaar, MJ, van Klink, JMM, Stolk, TT, van Zwet, EW, Oepkes, D, Lopriore, E. Cerebral injury in monochorionic twins with selective intrauterine growth restriction: a systematic review. Prenat Diagn. 2014; 34: 205–13.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Buca, D, Pagani, G, Rizzo, G, Familiari, A, Flacco, ME, Manzoli, L, et al. Outcome in monochorionic twin pregnancies with selective intrauterine growth restriction according to the umbilical artery Doppler pattern of the smaller twin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 50: 559–68.Google Scholar

Gratacós, E, Lewi, L, Muñoz, B, Acosta-Rojas, R, Hernandez-Andrade, E, Martinez, JM, et al. A classification system for selective intrauterine growth restriction in monochorionic pregnancies according to umbilical artery Doppler flow in the smaller twin. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 30: 28–34.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Rustico, MA, Consonni, D, Lanna, M, Faiola, S, Schena, V, Scelsa, B, et al. Selective intrauterine growth restriction in monochorionic twins: changing patterns in umbilical artery Doppler flow and outcomes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 49: 387–93.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ishii, K, Murakoshi, T, Takahashi, Y, Shinno, T, Matsushita, M, Naruse, H, et al. Perinatal outcome of monochorionic twins with selective intrauterine growth restriction and different types of umbilical artery doppler under expectant management. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2009; 26: 157–61.Google Scholar

Gratacós, E, Antolin, E, Lewi, L, Martínez, JM, Hernandez-Andrade, E, Acosta-Rojas, R, et al. Monochorionic twins with selective intrauterine growth restriction and intermittent absent or reversed end-diastolic flow (Type III): feasibility and perinatal outcome of fetoscopic placental laser coagulation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 31: 669–75.Google Scholar

Ishii, K, Murakoshi, T, Hayashi, S, Saito, M, Sago, H, Takahashi, Y, et al. Ultrasound predictors of mortality in monochorionic twins with selective intrauterine growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 37: 22–6.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.