Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Expectant management versus multifetal pregnancy reduction in higher order multiple pregnancies containing a monochorionic pair and a review of the literature

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the perinatal outcome in multifetal pregnancies containing a monochorionic twin pair, managed either expectantly or by fetal reduction (MFPR).

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on 47 triplet and 10 quadruplet pregnancies recruited between 10 and 14 weeks. Main outcome measures were miscarriage <24 weeks, preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, birth weight and survival rates.

Results

For triplets the miscarriage rates <24 weeks were 6.3 % after reduction and 20.0 % for expectant management and MFPR, respectively. While we recorded no case of severe preterm delivery <30 weeks in the reduction group, it was 25 % in those with expectant management. Mean gestational age and birth weight were significantly higher after fetal reduction than for the conservative approach (37.7 ± 1.6 weeks vs. 30.9 ± 3.2 weeks, p < 0.01 and 2676 ± 705 g vs. 1429 ± 542 g, p < 0.01). Expectantly managed triplets were complicated by twin–twin transfusion syndrome in 18.8 % and intrauterine fetal death in 8.3 %. Survival rates were 85.4 % for those managed expectantly and 80.0 % after fetal reduction. Mean gestational age of ongoing quadruplets was 26.9 ± 2.0 weeks vs. 34.5 ± 4.3 weeks for those with reduction of the monochorionic pair (p < 0.05). Survival rates were 100 % in the reduction group and 58.3 % in the expectant management group (p < 0.05). There was an inverse correlation between the final number of fetuses and the birth weight.

Conclusion

Fetal reduction in triplets and quadruplets including a monochorionic pair is associated with decreased early prematurity. While in quadruplets the overall survival is higher after reduction, there was no difference for dichorionic triplets with reduction or conservative management. Complications owing to monochorionicity are frequently observed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sebire NJ, Snijders RJ, Hughes K, Sepulveda W, Nicolaides KH (1997) The hidden mortality of monochorionic twin pregnancies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:1203–1207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Antsaklis A, Souka AP, Daskalakis G, Papantoniou N, Koutra P, Kavalakis Y et al (2004) Pregnancy outcome after multifetal pregnancy reduction. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 16:27–31

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Skiadas CC, Missmer SA, Benson CB, Acker D, Racowsky C (2011) Spontaneous reduction before 12 weeks’ gestation and selective reduction similarly extend time to delivery in in vitro fertilization of trichorionic-triamniotic triplets. Fertil Steril 95:596–599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Blickstein I, Keith LG (2005) The decreased rates of triplets births: temporal trends and biologic speculations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:327–331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chow JS, Benson CB, Racowsky C, Doubilet PM, Ginnsberg E (2001) Frequency of a monochorionic pair in multiple gestations. Relationship to mode of conception. J Ultrasound Med 20:757–760

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. De Catte L, Camus M, Foulon W (2002) Monochorionic high-order multiple pregnancies and multifetal pregnancy reduction. Obstet Gynecol 100:561–566

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Geipel A, Berg C, Katalinic A, Plath H, Hansmann M, Germer U et al (2005) Prenatal diagnosis and obstetric outcomes in triplet pregnancies in relation to chorionicity. BJOG 112:554–558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bajoria R, Ward SB, Adegbite AL (2006) Comparative study of perinatal outcome of dichorionic and trichorionic iatrogenic triplets. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:415–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Adegbite AL, Ward SB, Bajoria R (2005) Perinatal outcome of spontaneously conceived triplet pregnancies in relation to chorionicity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:1463–1471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chaveeva P, Kosinski P, Puglia D, Poon LC, Nicolaides KH (2013) Trichorionic and dichorionic triplet pregnancies at 10–14 weeks: outcome after embryo reduction compared to expectant management. Fetal Diagn Ther 34:199–205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Papageorghiou AT, Avgidou K, Bakoulas V, Sebire NJ, Nicolaides KH (2006) Risks of miscarriage and early preterm birth in trichorionic triplet pregnancies with embryo reduction versus expectant management: new data and systematic review. Hum Reprod 21:1912–1917

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Stone J, Ferrara L, Kamrath J, Getrajdman J, Berkowitz R, Moshier E et al (2008) Contemporary outcomes with the latest 1000 cases of multifetal pregnancy reduction (MPR). Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(406):e1–e4

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wimalasundera RC (2010) Selective reduction and termination of multiple pregnancies. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 15:327–335

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Morlando M, Ferrara L, D’Antonio F, Lawin-O’Brien A, Sankaran S, Pasupathy D et al (2015) 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 122:1053–1060

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Voigt M, Schneider KTM, Jährig K (1996) Analyse des Geburtsgutes des Jahrgangs 1992 der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Teil 1: Neue Perzentilwerte für die Körpermaße von Neugeborenen. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 56:550–558

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Quintero RA, Morales WJ, Allen MH, Bornick PW, Johnson PK, Kruger M (1999) Staging of twin-twin transfusion syndrome. J Perinatol 19:550–555

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Peeters SH, Middeldorp JM, Lopriore E, Klumper FJ, Oepkes D (2012) Monochorionic triplets complicated by fetofetal transfusion syndrome: a case series and review of the literature. Fetal Diagn Ther 32:239–245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. McPherson JA, Odibo AO, Shanks AL, Roehl KA, Macones GA, Cahill AG (2012) Impact of chorionicity on risk and timing of intrauterine fetal demise in twin pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207:190.e1–190.e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Adegbite AL, Ward BS, Bajora R (2007) Perinatal outcome of quadruplet pregnancies in relation to chorionicity. J Perinatol 27:15–21

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Evans MI, Berkowitz RL, Wapner RJ, Carpenter RJ, Goldberg JD, Ayoub MA et al (2001) Improvement in outcomes of multifetal pregnancy reduction with increased experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:97–103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Stone J, Eddleman K, Lynch L, Berkowitz RL (2002) A single center experience with 1000 consecutive cases of multifetal pregnancy reduction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:1163–1167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. van de Mheen L, Everwijn SM, Knapen MF, Oepkes D, Engels M, Manten GT, Zondervan H et al (2014) The effectiveness of multifetal pregnancy reduction in trichorionic triplet gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 210:536

    Google Scholar 

  23. Li R, Chen X, Yang S, Yang R, Ma C, Liu P et al (2013) Retain singleton or twins? Multifetal pregnancy reduction strategies in triplet pregnancies with monochorionic twins. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 167:146–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chaveeva P, Kosinski P, Birdir C, Orosz L, Nicolaides KH (2014) Embryo reduction in dichorionic triplets to dichorionic twins by intrafetal laser. Fetal Diagn Ther 35:83–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine, University Medical School Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53105, Bonn, Germany

    Judith Sarah Abel, Anne Flöck, Christoph Berg, Ulrich Gembruch & Annegret Geipel

  2. Division of Prenatal Medicine and Gynecologic Ultrasound, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical School Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Judith Sarah Abel & Christoph Berg

Authors
  1. Judith Sarah Abel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne Flöck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christoph Berg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ulrich Gembruch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Annegret Geipel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annegret Geipel.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

The institutional review boards of the University of Bonn do not require formal approval for retrospective archive studies therefore an ethical approval was not sought.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abel, J.S., Flöck, 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 294, 1167–1173 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4145-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4145-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation