Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-12T08:31:00.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 37 - Clinical Outcome and Management of Selective Fetal Growth Restriction in Monochorionic Twins

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2019

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

Summary

Selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR) affects about 10–15% of monochorionic (MC) twin pregnancies. When presenting during the second trimester, sFGR is a severe complication, with potentially significant risks of intrauterine demise or neurological adverse outcome for both the growth-restricted and the normally grown [1–9] fetuses. Unequal placental sharing (Figure 37.1), often associated with velamentous cord insertion, is the main cause of the development of sFGR in MC twins [10–14]. The natural history of sFGR in MC twins depends both on the discordance in placental territories and on the pattern of placental anastomoses. The blood flow interchange through vascular anastomoses interferes with the natural evolution of placental insufficiency, because the small fetus receives extra oxygen and nutrients from its normally grown co-twin. The pattern of vascular anastomoses, which may differ substantially among MC pregnancies, explains the remarkable differences in clinical course and outcomes that can be observed in pregnancies with similar degrees of fetal weight discordance [1, 12, 15, 16]. Consequently, a large interfetal blood flow interchange will result in a milder clinical course and better outcomes, while placentas with small/few anastomoses and little blood flow interchange will usually be associated with a more severe clinical course. Aside from these, large artery-to-artery (AA) anastomoses connecting the two cords may be present, and also have a strong influence on the clinical evolution.

Type
Chapter
Information
Fetal Therapy
Scientific Basis and Critical Appraisal of Clinical Benefits
, pp. 392 - 397
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.)

References

Gratacós, E, Carreras, E, Becker, J, et al. Prevalence of neurological damage in monochorionic twins with selective intrauterine growth restriction and intermittent absent or reversed end-diastolic umbilical artery flow. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 24: 159–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewi, L, Gucciardo, L, Huber, A, et al. Clinical outcome and placental characteristics of monochorionic diamniotic twin pairs with early- and late-onset discordant growth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199: 511. e1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valsky, DV, Eixarch, E, Martinez, JM, et al. Selective intrauterine growth restriction in monochorionic twins: pathophysiology, diagnostic approach and management dilemmas. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010; 15: 342–8.Google Scholar
Valsky, DV, Eixarch, E, Martinez, JM, et al. Selective intrauterine growth restriction in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies. Prenat Diagn. 2010; 30: 719–26.Google Scholar
Sebire, NJ, Snijders, RJ, Hughes, K, et al. The hidden mortality of monochorionic twin pregnancies. BJOG. 1997; 104: 1203–7.Google Scholar
Ishii, K, Murakoshi, T, Takahashi, Y, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Victoria, A, Mora, G, Arias, F. Perinatal outcome, placental pathology, and severity of discordance in monochorionic and dichorionic twins. Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 97: 310–15.Google Scholar
Gratacós, E, Lewi, L, Munoz, B, 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: 2834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ortibus, E, Lopriore, E, Deprest, J, et al. The pregnancy and long-term neurodevelopmental outcome of monochorionic diamniotic twin gestations: a multicenter prospective cohort study from the first trimester onward. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 200: 494. e1–8.Google Scholar
Chang, YL, Chang, SD, Chao, AS, et al. Clinical outcome and placental territory ratio of monochorionic twin pregnancies and selective intrauterine growth restriction with different types of umbilical artery Doppler. Prenat Diagn. 2009; 29: 253–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fick, AL, Feldstein, VA, Norton, ME, et al. Unequal placental sharing and birth weight discordance in monochorionic diamniotic twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195: 178–83.Google Scholar
Lewi, L, Cannie, M, Blickstein, I, et al. Placental sharing, birthweight discordance, and vascular anastomoses in monochorionic diamniotic twin placentas. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 197: 587. e1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denbow, ML, Cox, P, Taylor, M, et al. Placental angioarchitecture in monochorionic twin pregnancies: relationship to fetal growth, fetofetal transfusion syndrome, and pregnancy outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 182: 417–26.Google Scholar
Machin, GA.Velamentous cord insertion in monochorionic twin gestation. An added risk factor. J Reprod Med. 1997; 42: 785–8.Google Scholar
Hack, KE, Nikkels, PG, Koopman-Esseboom, C, et al. Placental characteristics of monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies in relation to perinatal outcome. Placenta. 2008: 29: 976–81.Google Scholar
Gratacós, E, Lewi, L, Carreras, E, et al. Incidence and characteristics of umbilical artery intermittent absent and/or reversed end-diastolic flow in complicated and uncomplicated monochorionic twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 23: 456–60.Google Scholar
Vanderheyden, TM, Fichera, A, Pasquini, L, et al. Increased latency of absent end diastolic flow in the umbilical artery of monochorionic twin fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 26: 44–9.Google Scholar
Khalil, A, Rodgers, M, Baschat, A, Bhide, A, Gratacós, E, Hecher, K, et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: role of ultrasound in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 47: 247–63.Google Scholar
Bejar, R, Vigliocco, G, Gramajo, H, et al. Antenatal origin of neurologic damage in newborn infants. II. Multiple gestations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 162: 1230–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennasar, M, Eixarch, E, Martínez, JM et al. Selective intrauterine growth restriction in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017; 22: 376–82.Google Scholar
Buca, D, Pagani, G, Rizzo, G, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gratacós, E, Van Schoubroeck, D, Carreras, E, et al. Impact of laser coagulation in severe twin-twin transfusion syndrome on fetal Doppler indices and venous blood flow volume. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 20: 125–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hecher, K, Jauniaux, E, Campbell, S, et al. Artery-to-artery anastomosis in monochorionic twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 171: 570–2.Google Scholar
Wee, LY, Taylor, MJ, Vanderheyden, T, et al. Transmitted arterio-arterial anastomosis waveforms causing cyclically intermittent absent/reversed end-diastolic umbilical artery flow in monochorionic twins. Placenta. 2003; 24:772–8.Google Scholar
Gaziano, E, Gaziano, C, Brandt, D. Doppler velocimetry determined redistribution of fetal blood flow: correlation with growth restriction in diamniotic monochorionic and dizygotic twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 178: 1359–67.Google Scholar
Bajoria, R, Wee, LY, Anwar, S, et al. Outcome of twin pregnancies complicated by single intrauterine death in relation to vascular anatomy of the monochorionic placenta. Hum Reprod. 1999; 14: 2124–30.Google Scholar
Ullberg, U, Sandstedt, B, Lingman, G. Hyrtl’s anastomosis, the only connection between the two umbilical arteries. A study in full term placentas from AGA infants with normal umbilical artery blood flow. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001; 80: 16.Google Scholar
Taylor, MJ, Denbow, ML, Tanawattanacharoen, S, et al. Doppler detection of arterio-arterial anastomoses in monochorionic twins: feasibility and clinical application. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15: 1632–6.Google Scholar
Inklaar, MJvan Klink, JMStolk, TT, et al. Cerebral injury in monochorionic twins with selective intrauterine growth restriction: a systematic review. Prenat Diagn. 2014; 34: 205–13.Google Scholar
Ishii, K, Murakoshi, T, Hayashi, S, et al. Ultrasound predictors of mortality in monochorionic twins with selective intrauterine growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 37: 22–6.Google Scholar
Chauhan, SP, Shields, D, Parker, D, et al. Detecting fetal growth restriction or discordant growth in twin gestations stratified by placental chorionicity. J Reprod Med. 2004; 49: 279–84.Google ScholarPubMed
Muñoz-Abellana, BHernandez-Andrade, EFigueroa-Diesel, Het al. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy-like changes in monochorionic twin pregnancies with selective intrauterine growth restriction and intermittent absent/reversed end-diastolic flow in the umbilical artery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 30: 977–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardiner, HM, Matsui, H, Roughton, M, et al. Cardiac function in 10-year-old twins following different fetal therapies for twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 43: 652–7.Google Scholar
Rossi, AC, D’Addario, V. Umbilical cord occlusion for selective feticide in complicated monochorionic twins: a systematic review of literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 200: 123–9.Google Scholar
Peeva, GBower, SOrosz, Let al. Endoscopic Placental Laser Coagulation in Monochorionic Diamniotic Twins with Type II Selective Fetal Growth Restriction. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2015; 38: 8693.Google Scholar
Quintero, RA, Bornick, PW, Morales, WJ, et al. Selective photocoagulation of communicating vessels in the treatment of monochorionic twins with selective growth retardation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 185: 689–96.Google Scholar
Parra-Cordero, MBennasar, M, Martínez, JM, et al. Cord occlusion in monochorionic twins with early selective intrauterine growth restriction and abnormal umbilical artery Doppler: a consecutive series of 90 cases. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2016; 39: 186–91.Google Scholar
Gratacós, E, Antolín, E, Lewi, L, 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
Quintero, RA, Bornick, PW, Morales, WJ, et al. Selective photocoagulation of communicating vessels in the treatment of monochorionic twins with selective growth retardation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 185: 689–96.Google Scholar
Chalouhi, GE, Marangoni, MA, Quibel, T, et al. Active management of selective intrauterine growth restriction with abnormal Doppler in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies diagnosed in the second trimester of pregnancy. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33: 109–15.Google Scholar
Yinon, Y, Ashwal, E, Weis, B, et al. Selective reduction in complicated monochorionic twins: prediction of obstetric outcome and comparison of techniques. Ultrasound Obstetric Gynecol. 2015; 46: 670–7.Google Scholar
Roman, A, Papanna, R, Johnson, A, et al. Selective reduction in complicated monochorionic pregnancies: radiofrequency ablation vs. bipolar cord coagulation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 36: 3741.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×