Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T15:29:03.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Complications of Monochorionic Multiple Pregnancy: Multifetal Reduction in Multiple Pregnancy

from Section 2: - Fetal Disease: Pathogenesis and Treatment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2019

Edited by
Mark D. Kilby ,
Anthony Johnson  and
Dick Oepkes
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

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Fetal Therapy
Scientific Basis and Critical Appraisal of Clinical Benefits
 , pp. 404 - 425
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

References

Evans, MI, Fletcher, JC, Zador, IE, Newton, BW, Struyk, CK, Quigg, MH. Selective first trimester termination in octuplet and quadruplet pregnancies: clinical and ethical issues. Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 71: 289–96.Google ScholarPubMed
Cohen, AB, Hanft, RS. Technology in American Health Care: Policy Direction for Effective Evaluation and Management. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Evans, MI, Hanft, RS. The introduction of new technologies. ACOG Clinical Seminars. 1997; 2: 1–3.Google Scholar
Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (2019). SART National Summary Report 2017. www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?reportingYear=2017.Google Scholar
Martin, JA, Hamilton, BE, Osterman, MJK: Births in the United States, 2018. NCHS Data Brief #346, July 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db346.htm.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015). Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART). www.cdc.gov/art/reports/Google Scholar
Evans, MI, Britt, DW. Medical, ethical, and legal aspects of fetal reduction. In Schenker, JL, ed., Ethical and Legal Aspects of ART. Berlin & New York: Walter De Gruyter GmbH & Co, 2011, pp. 121–130.Google Scholar
Martin, JA, Hamilton, BE, Osterman, MJK, Driscoll, AK, Drake, P. Births: Final Data for 2016. National Vital Statistics Report 67#1. Washington, DC: US Department Health and Human Services, CDC, NCHS, 2018.Google Scholar
Evans, MI, Andriole, SA, Britt, DW. Fetal Reduction – 25 years’ experience. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2014; 35: 69–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawlor, DA, Nelson, SM. Effect of age on decisions about the number of embryos to transfer in assisted conception: a prospective study. Lancet. 2012; 379: 521–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Task Force of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Neonatal Encephalopathy and Cerebral Palsy: Defining the Pathogenesis and Pathophysiology. Washington, DC: ACOG, 2003.Google Scholar
Task Force of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Neonatal Encephalopathy and Neurologic Outcome. Washington, DC: ACOG, 2014.Google Scholar
Petterson, B, Nelson, K, Watson, L, Stanley, F. Twins, triplets, and cerebral palsy in births in Western Australia in the 1980s. BMJ. 1993; 307: 1239–43.Google Scholar
Pharoah, PO, Cooke, T. Cerebral Palsy and Multiple Births. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1996; 75: F174–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dimitiiou, G, Pharoah, PO, Nicolaides, KH, Greenough, A. Cerebral palsy in triplet pregnancies with and without iatrogenic reduction. Eur J Pediatr. 2004; 163: 449–51.Google Scholar
Van Naarden Braun, K, Doernberg, N, Schieve, L, Christensen, D, Goodman, A, Yeargin-Allsopp, M. Birth prevalence of cerebral palsy: a population-based study. Pediatrics. 2016; 137: e2015872.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, D, Van Naarden Braun, K, Doernberg, NS, Maenner, MJ, Arneson, CL, Durkin, MS, et al. Prevalence of cerebral palsy, co-occurring autism spectrum disorders, and motor functioning – Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, USA, 2008. Devel Med Child Neurol. 2014; 56: 59–65.Google Scholar
Dahsling, MO, Anderson, GL, Irgens, L, Skranes, J, Vik, T. Risk of cerebral palsy in term-born singletons according to growth status at birth. Devel Med Child Neurol. 2014; 56: 53–58.Google Scholar
Boyle, CA, Boulet, S, Schieve, LA, Cohen, RA, Blumberg, SJ, Yeargin-Allsopp, M, Visser, S, Kogan, MD. Trends in the prevalence of developmental disabilities in US children, 1997–2008. Pediatrics. 2011; 127: 1034–42.Google Scholar
St. John, EB, Nelson, KG, Oliver, SP, Bishno, RR, Goldenberg, RL. Cost of neonatal care according to gestational age at birth and survival status. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 182: 170–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirby, RS. Contribution of cost of preterm infants to the total cost of infant health care in the United States. Pediatrics. 2017; 140: e20172240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March of Dimes (2013). Long-term health effects of premature birth. www.marchofdimes.org/complications/long-term-health-effects-of-premature-birth.aspxGoogle Scholar
Grosse, SD, Waitzman, NJ, Yang, N, Abe, K, Barfield, WD. Employer sponsored plan expenditures for infants born preterm. Pediatrics. 2017; 140: e20171078.Google Scholar
Cuevas, KD, Silver, DR, Brooten, D, Youngblut, JM, Bobo, CM. The cost of prematurity: Hospital charges at birth and frequency of rehospitalizations and acute care visits over the first year of life: a comparison by gestational age and birth weight. Am J Nurs. 2005; 105: 56–64.Google Scholar
Marlow, N, Wolke, D, Bracewell, MA, Samara, M, EPICure Study Group. Neurologic and developmental disability at six years of age after extremely preterm birth. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352: 9–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenbaum, P, Paneth, N, Leviton, A, Goldstein, M, Bax, M, Damiano, D, Dan, B, Jacobsson, B. A report: The definition and classification of cerebral palsy April 2006. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2007; 49: 8–14. [Corrected in Rosenbaum et al. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2007; Suppl. 109: 8–14]Google Scholar
Hack, M, Taylor, HG, Drotar, D, Schluchter, M, Cartar, L, Andreias, L, Wilson-Costello, D, Klein, N. Chronic conditions, functional limitations, and special health care needs of school-aged children born with extremely low birth weights in the 1990s. JAMA. 2008; 94: 318–25.Google Scholar
Stoll, BJ, Hansen, NI, Bell, EF, Shankaran, S, Laptook, AR, Walsh, MC, et al. Neonatal outcomes of extremely preterm infants from the NICHD Neonatal Research Network. Pediatrics. 2010; 126: 443–56.Google Scholar
Yogev, Y, Melamed, N, Bardin, R, Tenenbaum-Gavish, K, Ben-Shitrit, G, Ben-Haroush, AB. Pregnancy outcome at extremely advanced maternal age. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203: 558. e1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dumez, Y, Oury, JF. Method for first trimester selective abortion in multiple pregnancy. Contrib Gynecol Obstet. 1986; 15: 50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berkowitz, RL, Lynch, L, Chitkara, U, Wilkins, IA, Mehalek, KE, Alvarez, E. Selective reduction of multiple pregnancies in the first trimester. N Engl J Med. 1988; 318: 1043–7.Google Scholar
Wapner, RJ, Davis, GH, Johnson, A. Selective reduction of multifetal pregnancies. Lancet 1990; 335: 90–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Timor-Tritsch, IE, Peisner, DB, Monteagudo, A, Lerner, JP, Sharma, S. Multifetal pregnancy reduction by transvaginal puncture: evaluation of the technique used in 134 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 168: 799–804.Google Scholar
Li, R, Yang, R, Chen, X, Yang, S, Ma, C, Liu, P, Qiao, J. Intracranial KCl injection – an alternative method for multifetal pregnancy reduction in the early second trimester. Fetal Diag Ther. 2013; 34: 26–30.Google Scholar
Evans, MI, Dommergues, M, Wapner, RJ, Lynch, L, Dumez, Y, Goldberg, JD, et al. Efficacy of transabdominal multifetal pregnancy reduction: collaborative experience among the world’s largest centers. Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 82: 61–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Evans, MI, Drugan, A, Fletcher, JC, Platt, LD, Rodeck, CA, Hansmann, M, Bottoms, SF. Attitudes on the ethics of abortion, sex selection & selective termination among health care professionals, ethicists & clergy likely to encounter such situations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991; 164: 1092–9.Google Scholar
Yaron, Y, Bryant-Greenwood, PK, Dave, N, Moldenhauer, JS, Kramer, RL, Johnson, MP, Evans, MI. Multifetal pregnancy reduction (MFPR) of triplets to twins: Comparison with non-reduced triplets and twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 180: 1268–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antsaklis, A, Souka, AP, Daskalakis, G, Papantoniou, N, Koutra, P, Kavalakis, Y, Mesogitis, S. Embryo reduction versus expectant management in triplet pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2004; 16: 219–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luke, B, Brown, MD, Nugent, C, Gonzalez-Quintero, VH, Witter, FR, Newman, RB. Risk factors for adverse outcomes in spontaneous versus assisted conception in twin pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2004; 81: 315–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozinsky, Z, Zadori, J, Orvos, H, Katona, M, Pál, A, Kovács, L. Obstetric and neonatal risk of pregnancies after assisted reproductive technology: a matched control study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003; 82: 850–6.Google Scholar
McDonald, S, Murphy, K, Beyene, J, Ohlsson, A. Perinatal outcomes of in vitro fertilization twins: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193: 141–52.Google Scholar
Lipitz, S, Shulman, A, Achiron, R, Zalel, Y, Seidman, DS. A comparative study of multifetal pregnancy reduction from triplets to twins in the first versus early second trimesters after detailed fetal screening. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 18: 35–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sepulveda, W, Munoz, H, Alcalde, JL. Conjoined twins in a triplet pregnancy: early prenatal diagnosis with three-dimensional ultrasound and review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 22: 199–204.Google Scholar
Evans, MI, Berkowitz, R, Wapner, R, Carpenter, R, Goldberg, J, Ayoub, MA, et al. Multifetal pregnancy reduction (MFPR): improved outcomes with increased experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 184: 97–103.Google Scholar
Blickstein, I. How and why are triplets disadvantaged compared to twins. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 18: 631–44.Google Scholar
Rosner, M, Pergament, E, Andriole, S, Gebb, J, Dar, P, Evans, MI. Detection of genetic abnormalities using CVS and FISH prior to fetal reduction in sonographically normal appearing fetuses. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33: 940–4.Google Scholar
Chaveeva, P, Kosinski, P, Puglia, D, Poon, LC, Nicolaides, KH. Trichorionic and dichorionic triplet pregnancies at 10–14 weeks: outcome after embryo reduction compared to expectant management. Fetal Diag Ther. 2013; 34: 199–205.Google Scholar
Evans, MI, Kaufman, MI, Urban, AJ, Krivchenia, EL, Britt, DW, Wapner, RJ. Fetal reduction from twins to a singleton: a reasonable consideration. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 104: 102–9.Google Scholar
Templeton, A. The multiple gestation epidemic: the role of the assisted reproductive technologies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190: 894–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalra, SK, Milad, MP, Klock, SC, Grobman, WA. Infertility patients and their partners: differences in the desire for twin gestations. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 102: 152–5.Google Scholar
Evans, MI, Britt, DW. Selective Reduction in Multifetal Pregnancies. In Paul, M, Grimes, D, Stubblefield, P, Borgatta, L, Lichfield, S, Creinin, M, eds., Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy. London: Blackwell-Wiley Publishing Co, 2009, pp. 312–18.Google Scholar
Evans, MI, Britt, DW. Fetal reduction: ethical and societal issues. Sem Reprod Med. 2010; 28: 295–302.Google Scholar
Britt, DW, Von-Voris Schoenborn, S, Jamil, S, Gebb, J, Rosner, M, Evans, MI. The impact of area conservatism on deviations from best practice: women choosing to undergo selective reduction. Intl J Health Well Soc. 2017; 7: 115–40.Google Scholar
Balasch, J, Gratacós, E. Delayed childbearing: effects on fertility and the outcome of pregnancy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 24: 187–93.Google Scholar
Balasch, J, Gratacós, E. Delayed childbearing: effects on fertility and the outcome of pregnancy. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2011; 29: 263–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLean, LK, Evans, MI, Carpenter, RJ, Johnson, MP, Goldberg, JD. Genetic amniocentesis (AMN) following multifetal pregnancy reduction (MFPR) does not increase the risk of pregnancy loss. Prenat Diagn. 1998; 18: 186–8.Google Scholar
Wapner, RJ, Johnson, A, Davis, G, Urban, A, Morgan, P, Jackson, L. Prenatal diagnosis in twin gestations: a comparison between second-trimester amniocentesis and first-trimester chorionic villus sampling. Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 82: 49–56.Google Scholar
Brambati, B, Tului, L, Baldi, M, Guercilena, S. Genetic analysis prior to selective fetal reduction in multiple pregnancy: technical aspects and clinical outcome. Hum Reprod. 1995; 10: 818–25.Google Scholar
Tabor, A, Alfirevic, Z. Update on procedure-related risks for prenatal diagnosis techniques. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2010; 27: 1–7.Google Scholar
Hern, WM. Selective termination for fetal anomaly/genetic disorder in twin pregnancy at 32+ menstrual weeks. Report of four cases. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2004; 19: 292–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, MI, Goldberg, J, Horenstein, J, Wapner, R, Ayoub, MA, Stone, J, et al. Selective termination (ST) for structural (STR), chromosomal (CHR), and Mendelian (MEN) anomalies: International experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 181: 893–7.Google Scholar
Eddleman, KA, Stone, JL, Lynch, L, Berkowitz, RL. Selective termination of anomalous fetuses in multiple pregnancies: two hundred cases at a single center. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 187: 1168–72.Google Scholar
Lu, J, Ting, YH, Law, KM, Lau, TK, Leung, TY. Radiofrequency ablation for selective reduction in complicated monochorionic multiple pregnancies. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2013; 34: 211–16.Google Scholar
Pergament, E, Schulman, JD, Copeland, K, Fine, B, Black, SH, Ginsberg, NA, Frederiksen, MC, Carpenter, RJ. The risk and efficacy of chorionic villus sampling in multiple gestations. Prenat Diagn. 1992; 12: 377–84.Google Scholar
Nicolini, U, Lalatta, F, Natacci, F, Curcio, C, Bui, TH. The introduction of QF-PCR in prenatal diagnosis of fetal aneuploidies: time for reconsideration. Hum Reprod Update. 2004; 10: 541–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wapner, RJ, Martin, CL, Levy, B, Ballif, BC, Eng, CM, Zachary, JM, et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367: 2175–84.Google Scholar
Evans, MI, Wapner, RJ, Berkowitz, RL. Noninvasive prenatal testing or advanced diagnostic testing: caveat emptor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 215: 298–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, MI, Evans, SM, Bennett, TA, Wapner, RJ. The price of abandoning testing for cell-free fetal DNA screening. Prenat Diagn. 2018; 38: 243–5.Google Scholar
Evans, MI, Andriole, S, Curtis, J, Evans, SM, Kessler, AA, Rubenstein, AF. The epidemic of abnormal copy number variants missed because of reliance upon noninvasive prenatal screening. Prenat Diagn. 2018; 38: 730–4.Google Scholar
Wapner, RJ, Babiarz, JE, Levy, B, Stosic, M, Zimmermann, B, Sigurjonsoon, S, et al. Expanding the scope of noninvasive prenatal testing: detection of fetal microdeletion syndromes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015: 212: 322. e1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dreesen, J, Destouni, A, Kourlaba, G, Degn, B, Mette, WC, Carvalho, F, et al. Evaluation of PCR-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis applied to monogenic disease: a collaborative ESHRE PGD consortium study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013; 22: 1012–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Yang, Z, Liu, J, Collins, GS, Salem, SA, Liu, X, Lyle, SS, et al. Selection of single blactocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet. 2012; 5: 24–32.Google Scholar
Dondorp, W, de Wert, G, Bombard, Y, Bianchi, DW, Bergmann, C, Borry, P, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015; 57: 1–8.Google Scholar
Pantos, K, Kokkali, G, Petroutsou, K, Lekka, K, Malligiannis, P, Koratzis, A. Monochorionic triplet and monoamniotic twins gestation after intracytoplasmic sperm injection andlaser-assisted hatching. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2009; 25: 144–7.Google Scholar
Peeters, SH, Evans, MI, Slaghekke, F, Klumper, FJ, Middeldorp, JM, Lopriore, E, Oepkes, D. Pregnancy complications for di-chorionic, tri-amniotic triplets: markedly increased over trichorionic and reduced cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 210: S288.Google Scholar
Chaveeva, P, Peeva, G, Pugliese, SG, Shterev, A, Nicolaides, KH. Intrafetal laser ablation for embryo reduction from dichorionic triplets to dichorionic twins. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 50; 632–4.Google Scholar
Evans, MI, Rosner, M, Andriole, S, Alkalay, A, Gebb, J, Britt, DW. Evolution of gender preferences in multiple pregnancies. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33: 935–9.Google Scholar
Evans, MI, Andriole, S, Pergament, E, Curtis, J, Britt, DW. Paternity balancing. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2013; 33: 935–9.Google Scholar
Evans, MI, Goldberg, JD, Horenstein, J, Wapner, RJ, Ayoub, MA, Stone, J, et al. Selective termination (ST) for structural (STR), chromosomal (CHR), and Mendelian (MEN) anomalies: International experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 181: 893–7.Google Scholar
Hack, KE, Derks, JB, Elias, SG, Franx, A, Roos, EJ, Voerman, SK, et al. Increased perinatal mortality and morbidity in monochorionic versus dichorionic twin pregnancies: clinical implications of a large Dutch cohort study. BJOG. 2008; 115: 58–67.Google Scholar
Evans, MI, Lau, TK. Making decisions when no good options exist: Delivery of the survivor after intrauterine death of the co-twin in monochorionic twin pregnancies. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2010; 28: 191–5.Google Scholar
Quintero, RA, Reich, H, Puder, KS, Bardicef, M, Evans, MI, Cotton, DB, Romero, R. Brief report: umbilical cord ligation of an acardiac twin by fetoscopy at 19 weeks of gestation. N Engl J Med. 1994; 330: 469–71.Google Scholar
Gebb, J, Rosner, M, Dar, P, Evans, MI. Long term neurologic outcomes after fetal interventions: meta-analysis Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 210: S115.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, TL, Childress, JC. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 358–9.Google Scholar
Dziadosz, M, Evans, MI. Re-thinking single embryo transfer: increased risks of monozygotic twinning, a systematic review. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2017; 42: 81–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benjamin, M. Splitting the Difference: Compromise and Integrity in Ethics and Politics. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1990, pp. 72–4.Google Scholar
Britt, DW, Evans, MI. Sometimes doing the right thing sucks: Frame combinations and multifetal pregnancy reduction decision difficulty. Soc Sci Med. 2007; 65: 2342–56.Google Scholar
Britt, DW, Evans, MI: Information sharing among couples considering multifetal pregnancy reduction. Fertil Steril. 2007; 87: 490–5.Google Scholar
Tavrow, P. Promote or discourage: how providers can influence service use. In Malarcher, S, ed., Social Determinants of Sexual and Reproductive Health: Informing Future Research and Programme Implementation. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2010, pp. 17–36.Google Scholar
Britt, DW, Norton, J, Hubanks, A, Arias-Navidad, SG, Perkins, RJ, Lowery, C. A two period assessment of changes in specialist contact in a high risk pregnancy telemedical program. Telemed J E Health. 2006; 12: 1–7.Google Scholar
Britt, DW, Bronstein, J, Norton, JA. Absorbing and transferring risk: a logistic regression analysis of a statewide high-risk-pregnancy telemedical program on VLBW maternal transports. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2006; 6: 11.Google Scholar
Yeung, D. Social media as a catalyst for policy action and social change for health and well-being – a viewpoint. J Med Internet Res. 2018; 20: 3 e94.Google Scholar
Britt, DW, Eden, RD, Evans, MI. Matching risk and resources in high-risk pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2006; 19: 645–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Khalil, A, Rodgers, M, Baschat, A, et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: role of ultrasound in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 47: 247–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimalasundera, RC. Selective reduction and termination of multiple pregnancies. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010; 15: 327–35.Google Scholar
Evans, MI, Goldberg, JD, Dommergues, M, et al. Efficacy of second-trimester selective termination for fetal abnormalities: international collaborative experience among the world’s largest centers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 171: 90–4.Google Scholar
Moore, TR, Gale, S, Benirschke, K. Perinatal outcome of forty-nine pregnancies complicated by acardiac twinning. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 163: 907–12.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists. Management of Monochorionic Twin Pregnancy: Green-top Guideline No. 51. BJOG. 2017; 124: e1–45.Google Scholar
Healey, MG. Acardia: predictive risk factors for the co-twin’s survival. Teratology. 1994; 50: 205–13.Google Scholar
Tan, TY, Sepulveda, W. Acardiac twin: a systematic review of minimally invasive treatment modalities. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 22: 409–19.Google Scholar
Wong, AE, Sepulveda, W. Acardiac anomaly: current issues in prenatal assessment and treatment. Prenatal Diagn. 2005; 25: 796–806.Google Scholar
Pagani, G, D’Antonio, F, Khalil, A, et al. Intrafetal laser treatment for twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence: cohort study and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 42: 6–14.Google Scholar
Chaveeva, P, Poon, LC, Sotiriadis, A, et al. Optimal method and timing of intrauterine intervention in twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence: case study and meta-analysis. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2014; 35: 267–79.Google Scholar
Cabassa, P, Fichera, A, Prefumo, F, et al. The use of radiofrequency in the treatment of twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence: a case series and review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013; 166: 127–32.Google Scholar
Emery, SP, Bahtiyar, MO, Moise, KJ. The North American Fetal Therapy Network Consensus Statement: Management of Complicated Monochorionic Gestations. Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 126: 575–84.Google Scholar
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: 559–68.Google Scholar
Khalil, A, Beune, I, Hecher, 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
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: 28–34.Google Scholar
Bennasar, M, Eixarch, E, Martinez, JM, et al. Selective intrauterine growth restriction in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017; 22: 376–82.Google Scholar
Roberts, D, Neilson, JP, Kilby, MD, et al. Interventions for the treatment of twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 1: CD002073.Google Scholar
Lopriore, E, Middeldorp, JM, Oepkes, D, et al. Twin anemia-polycythemia sequence in two monochorionic twin pairs without oligo-polyhydramnios sequence. Placenta. 2007; 28: 47–51.Google Scholar
Slaghekke, F, Favre, R, Peeters, SH, et al. Laser surgery as a management option for twin anemia-polycythemia sequence. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 44: 304–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vojtech, J, Haslik, L, Pock, R, et al. Selective feticide in monochorionic twin pregnancies with discordant fetal anomalies: management and outcome. Ceska Gynekol. 2017; 82: 345–50.Google Scholar
Glinianaia, SV, Rankin, J, Khalil, A, et al. Prevalence, antenatal management and perinatal outcomes of monochorionic monoamniotic twin pregnancies: a collaborative multicentre study in England, 2000–2013. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 53: 184–92.Google Scholar
Middeldorp, JM, Klumper, FJ, Oepkes, D, et al. Selective feticide in monoamniotic twin pregnancies by umbilical cord occlusion and transection. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2008; 23: 121–5.Google Scholar
Rossi, AC, Prefumo, F. Impact of cord entanglement on perinatal outcome of monoamniotic twins: a systematic review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 41: 131–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geipel, A, Berg, C, Katalinic, A, et al. Prenatal diagnosis and obstetric outcomes in triplet pregnancies in relation to chorionicity. BJOG. 2005; 112: 554–8.Google Scholar
Chaveeva, P, Kosinski, P, Birdir, C, et al. Embryo reduction in dichorionic triplets to dichorionic twins by intrafetal laser. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2014; 35: 83–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaveeva, P, Peeva, G, Pugliese, SG, et al. Intrafetal laser ablation for embryo reduction from dichorionic triplets to dichorionic twins. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 50: 632–4.Google Scholar
Abel, JS, Flock, A, Berg, C, et al. Expectant management versus multifetal pregnancy reduction in higher order multiple pregnancies containing a monochorionic pair and a review of the literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016; 294: 1167–73.Google Scholar
Morlando, M, Ferrara, L, D’Antonio, F, et al. Dichorionic triplet pregnancies: risk of miscarriage and severe preterm delivery with fetal reduction versus expectant management. Outcomes of a cohort study and systematic review. BJOG. 2015; 122: 1053–60.Google Scholar
Yinon, Y, Ashwal, E, Weisz, B, et al. Selective reduction in complicated monochorionic twins: prediction of obstetric outcome and comparison of techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 46: 670–7.Google Scholar
Ichizuka, K, Hasegawa, J, Nakamura, M, et al. High-intensity focused ultrasound treatment for twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 40: 476–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okai, T, Ichizuka, K, Hasegawa, J, et al. First successful case of non-invasive in-utero treatment of twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence by high-intensity focused ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 42: 112–14.Google Scholar
Deprest, JA, Audibert, F, Van Schoubroeck, D, et al. Bipolar coagulation of the umbilical cord in complicated monochorionic twin pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 182: 340–5.Google Scholar
Lanna, MM, Rustico, MA, Dell’Avanzo, M, et al. Bipolar cord coagulation for selective feticide in complicated monochorionic twin pregnancies: 118 consecutive cases at a single center. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 39: 407–13.Google Scholar
Bebbington, MW, Danzer, E, Moldenhauer, J, et al. Radiofrequency ablation vs bipolar umbilical cord coagulation in the management of complicated monochorionic pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 40: 319–24.Google Scholar
Tsao, K, Feldstein, VA, Albanese, CT, et al. Selective reduction of acardiac twin by radiofrequency ablation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 187: 635–40.Google Scholar
Paramasivam, G, Wimalasundera, R, Wiechec, M, et al. Radiofrequency ablation for selective reduction in complex monochorionic pregnancies. BJOG. 2010. 117: 1294–8.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: 37–41.Google Scholar
Bebbington, M. Selective reduction in multiple gestations. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014; 28: 239–47.Google Scholar
Bebbington, M. Selective reduction in complex monochorionic gestations. Am J Perinatol. 2014; 31 (Suppl. 1): S51–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Lu, J, Ting, YH, Law, KM, et al. Radiofrequency ablation for selective reduction in complicated monochorionic multiple pregnancies. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2013; 34: 211–16.Google Scholar
Klaritsch, P, Albert, K, Van Mieghem, T, et al. Instrumental requirements for minimal invasive fetal surgery. BJOG. 2009; 116: 188–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Donoghue, K, Barigye, O, Pasquini, L, et al. Interstitial laser therapy for fetal reduction in monochorionic multiple pregnancy: loss rate and association with aplasia cutis congenita. Prenat Diagn. 2008; 28: 535–43.Google Scholar
Prefumo, F, Cabassa, P, Fichera, A, et al. Preliminary experience with microwave ablation for selective feticide in monochorionic twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 41: 470–1.Google Scholar
Prefumo, F, Cabassa, P, Fichera, A, et al. Microwave ablation in complicated monochorionic twin pregnancies. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2015; 38: 159.Google Scholar
Stephenson, CD, Temming, LA, Pollack, R, et al. Microwave ablation for twin-reversed arterial perfusion sequence: a novel application of technology. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2015; 38: 35–40.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
Ong, SS, Zamora, J, Khan, KS, et al. Prognosis for the co-twin following single-twin death: a systematic review. BJOG. 2006; 113: 992–8.Google Scholar
van Klink, JM, Koopman, HM, Oepkes, D, et al. Long-term neurodevelopmental outcome in monochorionic twins after fetal therapy. Early Hum Dev. 2011; 87: 601–6.Google Scholar
Panciatici, M, Tosello, B, Blanc, J, et al. Newborn outcomes after radiofrequency ablation for selective reduction in the complicated monochorionic pregnancies. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2017; 45: 197–201.Google Scholar
Lewi, L, Gratacós, E, Ortibus, E, et al. Pregnancy and infant outcome of 80 consecutive cord coagulations in complicated monochorionic multiple pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194: 782–9.Google Scholar
Kumar, S, Paramasivam, G, Zhang, E, et al. Perinatal- and procedure-related outcomes following radiofrequency ablation in monochorionic pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 210: 454. e1–6.Google Scholar
Lee, H, Bebbington, M, Crombleholme, TM. The North American Fetal Therapy Network Registry data on outcomes of radiofrequency ablation for twin-reversed arterial perfusion sequence. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2013; 33: 224–9.Google Scholar
Schou, KV, Jensen, LN, Jørgensen, C, et al. Ultrasound-guided bipolar umbilical cord occlusion in complicated monochorionic pregnancies: is there a learning curve. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2018; 44: 65–71.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.Google Scholar
Peeters, SH, Devlieger, R, Middeldorp, JM, DeKoninck, P, Deprest, J, Lopriore, E, et al. Fetal surgery in complicated monoamniotic pregnancies: case series and systematic review of the literature. Prenat Diagn. 2014; 34: 586–91.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
×