S'abonner

Intrauterine growth discordance across gestation and birthweight discordance in dichorionic twins - 28/01/20

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.08.027 
Melissa M. Amyx, PhD, MPH a, Paul S. Albert, PhD b, Alaina M. Bever, BS a, Stefanie N. Hinkle, PhD a, John Owen, MD, MSPH c, William A. Grobman, MD, MBA d, Roger B. Newman, MD e, Edward K. Chien, MD f, Robert E. Gore-Langton, PhD g, Germaine M. Buck Louis, PhD, MS h, Katherine L. Grantz, MD, MS a,
a Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD 
b Biostatistics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 
c Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama, Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL 
d Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 
e Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 
f Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Providence, RI 
g Emmes, Rockville, MD 
h Dean’s Office, College of Health and Human Services, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 

Corresponding author: Dr. Katherine L. Grantz, MD, MS.

Abstract

Background

Although intertwin size difference is an important measure of fetal growth, the appropriate cut point to define discordance is unclear. Few studies have assessed intertwin differences in estimated fetal weight longitudinally or in relation to size differences at birth.

Objectives

The objectives of the study were to estimate the magnitude of percentage differences in estimated fetal weight across gestation in dichorionic twins in relation to a fixed discordance cut point and compare classification of aberrant fetal growth by different measures (estimated fetal weight differences, birthweight discordance, small for gestational age).

Study Design

Women aged 18–45 years from 8 US centers with dichorionic twin pregnancies at 8 weeks 0 days to 13 weeks 6 days gestation planning to deliver in participating hospitals were recruited into the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Fetal Growth Studies–Dichorionic Twins study and followed through delivery (n = 140; 2012–2013). Ultrasounds were conducted at 6 targeted study visits to obtain fetal biometrics and calculate estimated fetal weight. Percent estimated fetal weight and birthweight differences were calculated: ([weightlarger – weightsmaller]/weightlarger)*100; discordance was defined as ≥18% for illustration. Birth sizes for gestational age (both, 1, or neither small for gestational age) were determined; twins were categorized into combined birthweight plus small for gestational age groups: birthweight discordance ≥18% (yes, no) with both, 1, or neither small for gestational age. Linear mixed-models estimated percentiles of estimated fetal weight percent differences across gestation and compared estimated fetal weight differences between combined birthweight discordance and small for gestational age groups. A Fisher exact test compared birthweight discordance and small for gestational age classifications.

Results

Median estimated fetal weight percentage difference increased across gestation (5.9% at 15.0, 8.4% at 38.0 weeks), with greater disparities at higher percentiles (eg, 90th percentile: 15.6% at 15.0, 26.3% at 38.0 weeks). As gestation advanced, an increasing percentage of pregnancies were classified as discordant using a fixed cut point: 10% at 27.0, 15% at 34.0, and 20% at 38.0 weeks. Birthweight discordance and small for gestational age classifications differed (P = .002); for birthweight discordance ≥18% vs <18%: 44% vs 71% had neither small for gestational age; 56% vs 18% had 1 small for gestational age; no cases (0%) vs 11% had both small for gestational age, respectively. Estimated fetal weight percent difference varied across gestation by birthweight discordance plus small for gestational age classification (P = .040). Estimated fetal weight percentage difference increased with birthweight discordance ≥18% (neither small for gestational age: 0.46%/week [95% confidence interval, 0.08–0.84]; 1 small for gestational age: 0.57%/week [95% confidence interval, 0.25–0.90]) but less so without birthweight discordance (neither small for gestational age: 0.17%/week [95% confidence interval, 0.06–0.28]; 1 small for gestational age: 0.03%/week [95% confidence interval, –0.17 to 0.24]); both small for gestational age: 0.10%/week [95% confidence interval, –0.15 to 0.36]).

Conclusion

The percentage of dichorionic pregnancies exceeding a fixed discordance cut point increased over gestation. A fixed cut point for defining twin discordance would identify an increasing percentage of twins as discordant as gestation advances. Small for gestational age and percentage weight differences assess distinct aspects of dichorionic twin growth. A percentile cut point may be more clinically useful for defining discordance, although further study is required to assess whether any specific percentile cut point correlates to adverse outcomes.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Key words : dichorionic, estimated fetal weight, fetal growth, small for gestational age, twin


Plan


 This study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health (contract numbers HHSN275200800013C, HHSN275200800002I, HHSN27500006, HHSN275200800003IC, HHSN275200800014C, HHSN275200800012C, HHSN275200800028C, and HHSN275201000009C). The funding source was not involved in the study design, data collection and analysis, or manuscript drafting or submission.
 Drs Amyx, Albert, Hinkle, and Grantz and Ms Bever are US federal government investigators/fellows. The other authors report no conflict of interest.
 Cite this article as: Amyx MM, Albert PS, Bever AM, et al. Intrauterine growth discordance across gestation and birthweight discordance in dichorionic twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020;222:174.e1-10.


© 2019  Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 222 - N° 2

P. 174.e1-174.e10 - février 2020 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Incomplete excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia as a predictor of the risk of recurrent disease—a 16-year follow-up study
  • Susanna Alder, David Megyessi, Karin Sundström, Ellinor Östensson, Miriam Mints, Karen Belki?, Marc Arbyn, Sonia Andersson
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Specific birth defects in pregnancies of women with diabetes: National Birth Defects Prevention Study, 1997–2011
  • Sarah C. Tinker, Suzanne M. Gilboa, Cynthia A. Moore, D. Kim Waller, Regina M. Simeone, Shin Y. Kim, Denise J. Jamieson, Lorenzo D. Botto, Jennita Reefhuis, National Birth Defects Prevention Study

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.