Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 299, Issue 2, pp 459–468 | Cite as

The value of ultrasound in predicting isolated inter-twin discordance and adverse perinatal outcomes

  • Xinning Chen
  • Qiongjie Zhou
  • Xirong Xiao
  • Xiaotian LiEmail author
Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the value of ultrasound approaching delivery to predict isolated inter-twin discordance and adverse perinatal outcomes.

Methods

We retrospectively included twin pregnancies with sonography approaching delivery in ten maternal–foetal medicine centres in China from 2013 to 2014. Estimated foetal weight (EFW) and inter-twin EFW disparity (EFWD) were calculated based on biometry parameters. Percentage errors between EFW and actual birthweight or between EFWD and actual inter-twin disparity were calculated. ROC curves and multiple logistic regression were applied to evaluate the ability of EFWD to predict inter-twin disparity ≥ 25%, stillbirth, asphyxia and admission to a neonatal intensive unit (NICU). Chorionicity-stratified analysis was further performed.

Results

Two hundred sixty-six monochorionic and 760 dichorionic twin pregnancies were analysed. The percentage errors in foetal weight estimations were 7–13%, whereas percentage errors in the estimation of inter-twin disparity were nearly 100%. Among eight formulas, Hadlock1 performed best, with a detectable rate of 65% and a false positive rate of 5% when predicting inter-twin disparity ≥ 25%. EFWD ≥ 22% was strongly associated with stillbirth (OR = 4.17, 95% CI 1.40–12.40) and NICU admission (OR = 3.48, 95% CI 2.03–5.97) after adjustment for gestational age, parity and abnormal umbilical systolic/diastolic ratio. Ultrasound had better predictive ability in monochorionic twins.

Conclusion

The predictive value of ultrasound for isolated inter-twin discordance and adverse perinatal outcomes was limited, which was possibly due to the magnifying of systematic errors in the disparity estimation compared with weight estimation. Despite this, abnormal biometry was an independent contributor for the poor prognosis of neonates.

Keywords

Inter-twin discordance Ultrasound Estimated fetal weight (EFW) Stillbirth Admission to neonatal intensive care unit 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the contributions of the members of the Collaborative Group on Twin Birth and Fetal Abnormality in China (CGTBFA), including the Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University (Prof. Caixia Liu), Women’s Hospital School of Medicine Zhejiang University (Prof. Jing He), the Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Health Institute Affiliated to Tongji University (Prof. Tao Duan), the Third Hospital Affiliated to Guangzhou Medical University (Prof. Dunjin Chen), the Shandong Provincial Hospital to Shandong University(Prof. Xietong Wang), the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Prof. Zilian Wang), the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (Prof. Hongbo Qi), the Peking University First Hospital (Prof. HuixiaYang) and the Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing Medical University (Prof. Yali Hu).

Author contribution

XC: data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing. QZ: data collection, manuscript editing. XX: data management, manuscript editing. XL: project development, funding acquisition, data management, manuscript editing.

Funding

This study was funded by Shanghai Medical Center of Key Programs for Female Reproductive Diseases (2017ZZ01016), National Key Research and Development Program of Reproductive Health & Major Birth Defects Control and Prevention (2016YFC1000403, 2016YFC1000403), and Shanghai Committee of Science and Technology (18411963400).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study obtained ethical approval from each institutional ethics committee of 10 collaborative hospitals (Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Gulou Clinical Medical College of Nanjing Medical University, Peking University First Hospital, Shandong Provincial Hospital of Shandong University, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Health Institute Affiliated with Tongji University, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Third Hospital Affiliated with GuangZhou Medical University, and Women’s Hospital School of Medicine at Zhejiang University). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

404_2018_5002_MOESM1_ESM.docx (25 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 25 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hack KE, Derks JB, Elias SG, Franx A, Roos EJ, Voerman SK, Bode CL, Koopman-Esseboom C, Visser GH (2008) Increased perinatal mortality and morbidity in monochorionic versus dichorionic twin pregnancies: clinical implications of a large Dutch cohort study. BJOG 115:58–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chauhan SP, Scardo JA, Hayes E, Abuhamad AZ, Berghella V (2010) Twins: prevalence, problems, and preterm births. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:305–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morin L, Lim K (2011) Ultrasound in twin pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 33:643–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D’Antonio F, Thilaganathan B, Laoreti A, Khalil A (2017) Birthweight discordance and neonatal morbidity in twin pregnancies: analysis of the STORK multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.18916 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jahanfar S, Lim K (2017) Adverse maternal outcomes and birth weight discordance in twin gestation: British Columbia, Canadian data. Int J Womens Health 9:871–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kalish RB, Gupta M, Perni SC, Berman S, Chasen ST (2004) Clinical significance of first trimester crown–rump length disparity in dichorionic twin gestations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1437–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D’Antonio F, Khalil A, Dias T, Thilaganathan B (2013) 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 41:621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johansen ML, Oldenburg A, Rosthoj S, Cohn MJ, Rode L, Tabor A (2014) Crown–rump length discordance in the first trimester: a predictor of adverse outcome in twin pregnancies? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43:277–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nakayama S, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, Yamamoto R, Murata M, Hayashi S, Mitsuda N (2014) Perinatal complications of monochorionic diamniotic twin gestations with discordant crown–rump length determined at mid-first trimester. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 40:418–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D’Antonio F, Khalil A, Morlando M, Thilaganathan B (2015) Accuracy of predicting fetal loss in twin pregnancies using gestational age-dependent weight discordance cut-offs: analysis of the STORK multiple pregnancy cohort. Fetal Diagn Ther 38:22–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D’Antonio F, Khalil A, Thilaganathan B (2014) Second-trimester discordance and adverse perinatal outcome in twins: the STORK multiple pregnancy cohort. BJOG 121:422–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gratacos E, Lewi L, Munoz B, Acosta-Rojas R, Hernandez-Andrade E, Martinez JM, Carreras E, Deprest J (2007) A classification system for selective intrauterine growth restriction in monochorionic pregnancies according to umbilical artery Doppler flow in the smaller twin. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 30:28–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gaziano EP, Gaziano C, Terrell CA, Hoekstra RE (2001) The cerebroplacental Doppler ratio and neonatal outcome in diamnionic monochorionic and dichorionic twins. J Matern Fetal Med 10:371–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Caravello JW, Chauhan SP, Morrison JC, Magann EF, Martin JJ, Devoe LD (1997) Sonographic examination does not predict twin growth discordance accurately. Obstet Gynecol 89:529–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chamberlain P, Murphy M, Comerford FR (1991) How accurate is antenatal sonographic identification of discordant birthweight in twins? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 40:91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van de Waarsenburg MK, Hack KE, Rijpma RJ, Mulder EJ, Pistorius L, Derks JB (2015) Ultrasonographic prediction of birth weight discordance in twin pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 35:906–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Mieghem T, Deprest J, Klaritsch P, Gucciardo L, Done E, Verhaeghe J, Lewi L (2009) Ultrasound prediction of intertwin birth weight discordance in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 29:240–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chang YL, Chang TC, Chang SD, Cheng PJ, Chao AS, Hsieh PC, Soong YK (2006) Sonographic prediction of significant intertwin birth weight discordance. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 127:35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gernt PR, Mauldin JG, Newman RB, Durkalski VL (2001) Sonographic prediction of twin birth weight discordance. Obstet Gynecol 97:53–56Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hehir MP, Breathnach FM, Hogan JL, Mcauliffe FM, Geary MP, Daly S, Higgins J, Hunter A, Morrison JJ, Burke G, Mahony R, Dicker P, Tully E, Malone FD (2017) Prenatal prediction of significant intertwin birthweight discordance using standard second and third trimester sonographic parameters. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 96:472–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Khalil AA, Khan N, Bowe S, Familiari A, Papageorghiou A, Bhide A, Thilaganathan B (2015) Discordance in fetal biometry and Doppler are independent predictors of the risk of perinatal loss in twin pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.024 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Danon D, Melamed N, Bardin R, Meizner I (2008) Accuracy of ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation in twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 112:759–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dudley NJ (2005) A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25:80–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stirrup OT, Khalil A, D’Antonio F, Thilaganathan B (2015) Fetal growth reference ranges in twin pregnancy: analysis of the Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK) multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 45:301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stirrup OT, Khalil A, D’Antonio F, Thilaganathan B (2017) Patterns of second- and third-trimester growth and discordance in twin pregnancy: analysis of the Southwest Thames obstetric research collaborative (STORK) multiple pregnancy cohort. Fetal Diagn Ther 41:100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wei J, Wu QJ, Zhang TN, Shen ZQ, Liu H, Zheng DM, Cui H, Liu CX (2016) Complications in multiple gestation pregnancy: a cross-sectional study of ten maternal-fetal medicine centers in China. Oncotarget 7:30797–30803Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kalish RB, Thaler HT, Chasen ST, Gupta M, Berman SJ, Rosenwaks Z, Chervenak FA (2004) First- and second-trimester ultrasound assessment of gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:975–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dias T, Mahsud-Dornan S, Thilaganathan B, Papageorghiou A, Bhide A (2010) First-trimester ultrasound dating of twin pregnancy: are singleton charts reliable? BJOG 117:979–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tunon K, Eik-Nes SH, Grottum P, Von During V, Kahn JA (2000) Gestational age in pregnancies conceived after in vitro fertilization: a comparison between age assessed from oocyte retrieval, crown–rump length and biparietal diameter. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 15:41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stenhouse E, Hardwick C, Maharaj S, Webb J, Kelly T, Mackenzie FM (2002) Chorionicity determination in twin pregnancies: how accurate are we? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 19:350–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bromley B, Benacerraf B (1995) Using the number of yolk sacs to determine amnionicity in early first trimester monochorionic twins. J Ultrasound Med 14:415–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sarris I, Ioannou C, Ohuma EO, Altman DG, Hoch L, Cosgrove C, Fathima S, Salomon LJ, Papageorghiou AT (2013) Standardisation and quality control of ultrasound measurements taken in the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. BJOG 120(Suppl 2):33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK (1985) Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements–a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 151:333–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Carpenter RJ, Deter RL, Park SK (1984) Sonographic estimation of fetal weight. The value of femur length in addition to head and abdomen measurements. Radiology 150:535–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ong S, Smith AP, Fitzmaurice A, Campbell D (1999) Estimation of fetal weight in twins: a new mathematical model. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106:924–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ott WJ, Doyle S, Flamm S, Wittman J (1986) Accurate ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight. Prospective analysis of new ultrasonic formulas. Am J Perinatol 3:307–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shepard MJ, Richards VA, Berkowitz RL, Warsof SL, Hobbins JC (1982) An evaluation of two equations for predicting fetal weight by ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 142:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Combs CA, Rosenn B, Miodovnik M, Siddiqi TA (2000) Sonographic EFW and macrosomia: is there an optimum formula to predict diabetic fetal macrosomia? J Matern Fetal Med 9:55–61Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lewi L, Gucciardo L, Van Mieghem T, de Koninck P, Beck V, Medek H, Van Schoubroeck D, Devlieger R, De Catte L, Deprest J (2010) Monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies: natural history and risk stratification. Fetal Diagn Ther 27:121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rustico MA, Consonni D, Lanna M, Faiola S, Schena V, Scelsa B, Introvini P, Righini A, Parazzini C, Lista G, Barretta F, Ferrazzi E (2017) Selective intrauterine growth restriction in monochorionic twins: changing patterns in umbilical artery Doppler flow and outcomes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 49:387–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Acharya G, Wilsgaard T, Berntsen GK, Maltau JM, Kiserud T (2005) Reference ranges for serial measurements of umbilical artery Doppler indices in the second half of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:937–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    D’Antonio F, Khalil A, Dias T, Thilaganathan B (2013) Weight discordance and perinatal mortality in twins: analysis of the Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK) multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 41:643–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hartley RS, Hitti J, Emanuel I (2002) Size-discordant twin pairs have higher perinatal mortality rates than nondiscordant pairs. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:1173–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vergani P, Locatelli A, Ratti M, Scian A, Pozzi E, Pezzullo JC, Ghidini A (2004) Preterm twins: what threshold of birth weight discordance heralds major adverse neonatal outcome? Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1441–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Branum AM, Schoendorf KC (2003) The effect of birth weight discordance on twin neonatal mortality. Obstet Gynecol 101:570–574Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    D’Antonio F, Odibo AO, Prefumo F, Khalil A, Buca D, Flacco ME, Liberati M, Manzoli L, Acharya G (2017) Weight discordance and perinatal mortality in twin pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.18966 Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chen ZL, Liu J, Feng ZC (2013) Experts’ consensus on the criteria for the diagnosis and grading of neonatal asphyxia in China. Transl Pediatr 2:64–65Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Moret L, Mesbah M, Chwalow J, Lellouch J (1993) Internal validation of a measurement scale: relation between principal component analysis, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and intra-class correlation coefficient. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 41:179–186Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Davies MJ, Moore VM, Willson KJ, Van Essen P, Priest K, Scott H, Haan EA, Chan A (2012) Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med 366:1803–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    McDonald SD, Murphy K, Beyene J, Ohlsson A (2005) Perinatel outcomes of singleton pregnancies achieved by in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 27:449–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Masheer S, Maheen H, Munim S (2015) Perinatal outcome of twin pregnancies according to chorionicity: an observational study from tertiary care hospital. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 28:23–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jacobsson B, Ladfors L, Milsom I (2004) Advanced maternal age and adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 104:727–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Phillips JK, Skelly JM, King SE, Bernstein IM, Higgins ST (2018) Associations of maternal obesity and smoking status with perinatal outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 31:1620–1626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zhao DP, Cambiaso O, Otano L, Lewi L, Deprest J, Sun LM, Duan T, Oepkes D, Shapiro S, De Paepe ME, Lopriore E (2015) Veno-venous anastomoses in twin-twin transfusion syndrome: a multicenter study. Placenta 36:911–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Galea P, Jain V, Fisk NM (2005) Insights into the pathophysiology of twin–twin transfusion syndrome. Prenat Diagn 25:777–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Favre R, Koch A, Weingertner AS, Sananes N, Trieu NT, Kohler M, Guerra F, Nisand I (2013) Vascular pattern in monochorionic placentas with spontaneous TAPS and TTTS with residual anastomoses after laser: a case–control study. Prenat Diagn 33:979–982Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Khalil A, Rodgers M, Baschat A, Bhide A, Gratacos E, Hecher K, Kilby MD, Lewi L, Nicolaides KH, Oepkes D, Raine-Fenning N, Reed K, Salomon LJ, Sotiriadis A, Thilaganathan B, Ville Y (2016) ISUOG practice guidelines: role of ultrasound in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47:247–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Townsend R, Khalil A (2016) Twin pregnancy complicated by selective growth restriction. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 28:485–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Khalil A, D’Antonio F, Dias T, Cooper D, Thilaganathan B (2014) Ultrasound estimation of birth weight in twin pregnancy: comparison of biometry algorithms in the STORK multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 44:210–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hoopmann M, Kagan KO, Yazdi B, Grischke EM, Abele H (2011) Prediction of birth weight discordance in twin pregnancies by second- and third- trimester ultrasound. Fetal Diagn Ther 30:29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Reberdao MA, Martins L, Torgal M, Viana R, Seminova T, Casal E, Hermida M, Blickstein I (2010) The source of error in the estimation of intertwin birth weight discordance. J Perinat Med 38:671–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Esinler D, Bircan O, Esin S, Sahin EG, Kandemir O, Yalvac S (2015) Finding the best formula to predict the fetal weight: comparison of 18 formulas. Gynecol Obstet Invest 80:78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Leombroni M, Liberati M, Fanfani F, Pagani G, Familiari A, Buca D, Manzoli L, Scambia G, Rizzo G, D’Antonio F (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in predicting birth-weight discordance in twin pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 50:442–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kadji C, Bevilacqua E, Hurtado I, Carlin A, Cannie MM, Jani JC (2018) Comparison of conventional 2D ultrasound to magnetic resonance imaging for prenatal estimation of birthweight in twin pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.10.009 Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Gaziano EP, Gaziano C, Terrell CA, Hoekstra RE (2001) The cerebroplacental Doppler ratio and neonatal outcome in diamnionic monochorionic and dichorionic twins. J Matern Fetal Med 10:371–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Chittacharoen A, Leelapattana P, Rangsiprakarn R (2000) Prediction of discordant twins by real-time ultrasonography combined with umbilical artery velocimetry. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 15:118–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Queiros A, Blickstein I, Valdoleiros S, Felix N, Cohen A, Simoes T (2017) Prediction of birth weight discordance from fetal weight estimations at 21–24 weeks’ scans in monochorionic and dichorionic twins. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 30:1944–1947CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Obstetrics and Gynecology HospitalFudan UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Shanghai Key Laboratory of Female Reproductive Endocrine-Related DiseasesShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Women’s Health and Perinatology Research Group, Department of Clinical MedicineUiT, The Arctic University of NorwayTromsøNorway
  4. 4.Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Fudan UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations