4.5 Article

Velamentous cord insertion in dichorionic and monochorionic twin pregnancies - Does it make a difference?

期刊

PLACENTA
卷 42, 期 -, 页码 87-92

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.placenta.2016.04.007

关键词

Monochorionic twins; Dichorionic twins; Twin-twin transfusion syndrome; Velamentous cord insertion; Severe birth weight discordance; Intrauterine fetal demise

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To estimate the prevalence of velamentous cord insertion (VCI) in dichorionic (DC) and monochorionic (MC) twins with and without twin-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS), and to study the associated outcomes. Methods: We recorded the type of umbilical cord insertion in all consecutive DC and MC placentas examined in two European tertiary medical centers. The association between VCI and perinatal outcomes was estimated and compared. Results: A total of 1498 twin placentas were included in this study (DC placentas n = 550, MC placentas without TTTS n = 513 and MC placentas with TTTS n = 435). The prevalence of VCI in DC, MC without TTTS and MC with TTTS groups was 7.6%, 34.7% and 36.1%, respectively (P < 0.001). In MC twins (non-TTTS and TTTS groups), VCI was associated with severe birth weight discordance (odds ratio [OR] 4.76 95% CI 2.43, 10.47 and OR 4.52 95% CI 1.30, 28.59, respectively). In MC twins without TTTS, VCI was associated with small for gestational age (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.12, 2.50). VCI was significantly associated with increased risk of intrauterine fetal demise in MC twins, and this effect was greater in the non-TTTS group (OR 2.71 95% CI 1.38, 5.47). These associations did not occur in DC group. Gestational age at birth was lower in the presence of VCI in the DC and MC twins without TTTS. Conclusion: Our findings confirm that the prevalence of VCI is higher in MC twins than in DC twin pregnancies. VCI is an important indicator of adverse perinatal outcome, particularly in MC twins. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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