Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2022; 39(03): 243-251
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1714420
Review Article

Neonatal Morbidity of Monoamniotic Twin Pregnancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Danilo Buca   *
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centre for High Risk Pregnancy and Fetal Care, University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy
,
Daniele Di Mascio    *
2   Department of Maternal and Child Health and Urological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
,
Asma Khalil
3   Fetal Medicine Unit, Saint George's Hospital, London, United Kingdom
4   Vascular Biology Research Centre, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St. George's University of London, London, United Kingdom
,
Ganesh Acharya
5   Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
6   Women's Health and Perinatology Research Group, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway and University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway
,
Tim Van Mieghem
7   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mount Sinai Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
,
Karien Hack
8   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gelre Hospitals Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
,
Masaharu Murata
9   Center for Maternal, Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, Fukuoka University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan
,
Olivia Anselem
10   Maternité Port-Royal, Groupe Hospitalier Cochin-Broca-Hôtel-Dieu, Université Paris Descartes, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Paris, France
,
Alice D'Amico
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centre for High Risk Pregnancy and Fetal Care, University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy
,
Ludovico Muzii
2   Department of Maternal and Child Health and Urological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
,
Marco Liberati
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centre for High Risk Pregnancy and Fetal Care, University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy
,
Luigi Nappi
11   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fetal Medicine and Cardiology Unit, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
,
Francesco D'Antonio
11   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fetal Medicine and Cardiology Unit, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study was aimed to report the incidence of neonatal morbidity in monochorionic monoamniotic (MCMA) twin pregnancies according to gestational age at birth and type of management adopted (inpatient or outpatient).

Study Design Medline and Embase databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were nonanomalous MCMA twins. The primary outcome was a composite score of neonatal morbidity, defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following outcomes: respiratory morbidity, overall neurological morbidity, severe neurological morbidity, and infectious morbidity, necrotizing enterocolitis at different gestational age windows (24–30, 31–32, 33–34, and 35–36 weeks). Secondary outcomes were the individual components of the primary outcome and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Subanalysis according to the type of surveillance strategy (inpatient compared with outpatient) was also performed. Random effect meta-analyses were used to analyze the data.

Results A total of 14 studies including 685 MCMA twin pregnancies without fetal anomalies were included. At 24 to 30, 31 to 32, 33 to 34, and 35 to 36 weeks of gestation, the rate of composite morbidity was 75.4, 65.5, 37.6, and 18.5%, respectively, the rate of respiratory morbidity was 74.2, 59.1, 35.5, and 12.2%, respectively, while overall neurological morbidity occurred in 15.3, 10.2, 4.3, and 0% of the cases, respectively. Infectious morbidity complicated 13, 4.2, 3.1, and 0% of newborns while 92.1, 81.6, 58.7, and 0% of cases required admission to NICU. Morbidity in pregnancies delivered between 35 and 36 weeks of gestation was affected by the very small sample size of cases included. When comparing the occurrence of overall morbidity according to the type of management (inpatient or outpatient), there was no difference between the two surveillance strategies (p = 0.114).

Conclusion MCMA pregnancies are at high risk of composite neonatal morbidity, mainly respiratory morbidity that gradually decreases with increasing gestational age at delivery with a significant reduction for pregnancies delivered between 33 and 34 weeks. We found no difference in the occurrence of neonatal morbidity between pregnancies managed as inpatient or outpatient.

Key Points

  • MCMA pregnancies are at high risk of composite neonatal morbidity, mainly respiratory morbidity.

  • Neonatal morbidity gradually decreases with increasing GA at delivery, mostly between 33 and 34 weeks.

  • There is no difference in the occurrence of neonatal morbidity between in- or outpatient management.

Keywords

morbidity - monoamniotic - monochorionic - MCMA - twins - twin pregnancy

* These authors share first authorship.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 25 April 2020

Accepted: 18 June 2020

Article published online:
28 July 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics, Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine. Practice bulletin no. 169: multifetal gestations: twin, triplet, and higher-order multifetal pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 28 (04) e131-e146
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 D'Antonio F, Odibo A, Berghella V. et al. Perinatal mortality, timing of delivery and prenatal management of monoamniotic twin pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 53 (02) 166-174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 D'Antonio F, Khalil A, Mantovani E, Thilaganathan B. Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative. Embryonic growth discordance and early fetal loss: the STORK multiple pregnancy cohort and systematic review. Hum Reprod 2013; 28 (10) 2621-2627
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Murgano D, Khalil A, Prefumo F. et al. Outcome of twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome in monochorionic monoamniotic twin pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 55 (03) 310-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Di Mascio D, Khalil A, D'Amico A. et al. Outcome of twin-twin transfusion syndrome according to the Quintero stage of the disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020 (e-pub ahead of print). Doi: 10.1002/uog.22054
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Leombroni M, Liberati M, Fanfani F. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in predicting birth-weight discordance in twin pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50 (04) 442-450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Buca D, Pagani G, Rizzo G. et al. Outcome of monochorionic twin pregnancy with selective intrauterine growth restriction according to umbilical artery Doppler flow pattern of smaller twin: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50 (05) 559-568
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Di Mascio D, Acharya G, Khalil A. et al. Birthweight discordance and neonatal morbidity in twin pregnancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2019; 98 (10) 1245-1257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Saccone G, Khalil A, Thilaganathan B, Glinianaia SV, Berghella V, D'Antonio F. MONOMONO, NorSTAMP, and STORK research collaboratives. Weight discordance and perinatal mortality in monoamniotic twin pregnancies: analysis of the MONOMONO, NorSTAMP and STORK multiple pregnancy cohorts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 55 (03) 332-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 MONOMONO Working Group. Inpatient vs outpatient management and timing of delivery of uncomplicated monochorionic monoamniotic twin pregnancy: the MONOMONO study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 53 (02) 175-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Henderson LK, Craig JC, Willis NS, Tovey D, Webster AC. How to write a Cochrane systematic review. Nephrology (Carlton) 2010; 15 (06) 617-624
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Accessed December 3, 2016 at: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Welch V, Petticrew M, Petkovic J. et al; PRISMA-Equity Bellagio group. Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 70: 68-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151 (04) 264-269 , W64
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP. et al; PRISMAHarms Group. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ 2016; 352: i157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC. et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283 (15) 2008-2012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta- analyses. Accessed July 6, 2020 at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315 (7109): 629-634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Glinianaia SV, Rankin J, Khalil A. et al. Prevalence, antenatal management and perinatal outcome of monochorionic monoamniotic twin pregnancy: a collaborative multicenter study in England, 2000-2013. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 53 (02) 184-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Prefumo F, Fichera A, Pagani G, Marella D, Valcamonico A, Frusca T. The natural history of monoamniotic twin pregnancies: a case series and systematic review of the literature. Prenat Diagn 2015; 35 (03) 274-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Anselem O, Mephon A, Le Ray C, Marcellin L, Cabrol D, Goffinet F. Continued pregnancy and vaginal delivery after 32 weeks of gestation for monoamniotic twins. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015; 194: 194-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Van Mieghem T, De Heus R, Lewi L. et al. Prenatal management of monoamniotic twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124 (03) 498-506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Murata M, Ishii K, Kamitomo M. et al. Perinatal outcome and clinical features of monochorionic monoamniotic twin gestation. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2013; 39 (05) 922-925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Suzuki S. Case series of monoamniotic and pseudomonoamniotic twin gestations. ISRN Obstet Gynecol 2013; 2013: 369419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Aurioles-Garibay A, Hernandez-Andrade E, Romero R. et al. Presence of an umbilical artery notch in monochorionic/monoamniotic twins. Fetal Diagn Ther 2014; 36 (04) 305-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hack KE, Derks JB, Schaap AH. et al. Perinatal outcome of monoamniotic twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113 (2 Pt 1): 353-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cordero L, Franco A, Joy SD. Monochorionic monoamniotic twins: neonatal outcome. J Perinatol 2006; 26 (03) 170-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pasquini L, Wimalasundera RC, Fichera A, Barigye O, Chappell L, Fisk NM. High perinatal survival in monoamniotic twins managed by prophylactic sulindac, intensive ultrasound surveillance, and Cesarean delivery at 32 weeks' gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28 (05) 681-687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 DeFalco LM, Sciscione AC, Megerian G. et al. Inpatient versus outpatient management of monoamniotic twins and outcomes. Am J Perinatol 2006; 23 (04) 205-211
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Heyborne KD, Porreco RP, Garite TJ, Phair K, Abril D. Obstetrix/Pediatrix Research Study Group. Improved perinatal survival of monoamniotic twins with intensive inpatient monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192 (01) 96-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Demaria F, Goffinet F, Kayem G, Tsatsaris V, Hessabi M, Cabrol D. Monoamniotic twin pregnancies: antenatal management and perinatal results of 19 consecutive cases. BJOG 2004; 111 (01) 22-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Allen VM, Windrim R, Barrett J, Ohlsson A. Management of monoamniotic twin pregnancies: a case series and systematic review of the literature. BJOG 2001; 108 (09) 931-936
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE guideline on twin and triplet pregnancy. Accessed March 28, 2020 at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng137
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ishii K. Prenatal diagnosis and management of monoamniotic twins. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2015; 27 (02) 159-164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 D'Antonio F, Thilaganathan B, Dias T, Khalil A. Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK). Influence of chorionicity and gestational age at single fetal loss on risk of preterm birth in twin pregnancy: analysis of STORK multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50 (06) 723-727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 D'Antonio F, Khalil A, Dias T, Thilaganathan B. Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative. Crown-rump length discordance and adverse perinatal outcome in twins: analysis of the Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK) multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41 (06) 621-626
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Dias T, Mahsud-Dornan S, Bhide A, Papageorghiou AT, Thilaganathan B. Cord entanglement and perinatal outcome in monoamniotic twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35 (02) 201-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kilby MD, Bricker L. Management of monochorionic twin pregnancy. BJOG 2016; 124: e1-e45
    PubMedGoogle Scholar