4.6 Article

Donor Death After Selective Fetoscopic Laser Surgery for Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome

期刊

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
卷 126, 期 1, 页码 74-80

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000858

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence, timing, and risk factors for death of the donor fetus after fetoscopic laser surgery, we evaluated our cohort of patients who underwent the procedure for twin-twin transfusion syndrome. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of 166 consecutive patients with twin-twin transfusion syndrome at a single center. Fetal death was diagnosed by ultrasonography after surgery and before onset of labor. Risk factors for death of the donor twin were identified on univariate analysis and then subjected to multivariate, stepwise, logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Donor demise occurred in 20 (13%) cases and recipient twin death occurred in four (2.6%). The median procedure to death interval was 4 days (range 1-89 days). Risk factors for donor death were fetal growth discordance greater than 30% (odds ratio [OR] 6.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2-23), reverse end-diastolic velocity in the donor umbilical artery (OR 25.0, 95% CI 2-290), a marginal and velamentous cord insertion (OR 4.4, 95% CI 1-19), and an increased number of anastomoses (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.5). All four donors with both fetal growth discordance greater than 30% and reverse end-diastolic velocity in the donor umbilical artery resulted in a demise. CONCLUSION: Four risk factors significantly affecting acute and delayed donor demise after fetoscopic laser surgery were identified. The presence of both fetal growth discordance greater than 30% and reverse end-diastolic velocity in the donor umbilical artery was highly predictive of donor demise in our cohort. Knowledge of these risk factors can aid in counseling and assist patients in choosing the most appropriate intervention in the management of twin-twin transfusion syndrome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据