Assessing an impact on perinatal outcome in monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancy complicated with discordant fetal growth

Introduction. Multifetal pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Type of placentation and discordant fetal growth may be risk factors of adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Aim: to compare an impact of dichorionic and monochorionic twin pregnancies with symmetric and discordant fetal growth on perinatal outcomes, as well as morbidity and mortality.
Materials and Methods. There was conducted a retrospective study of 485 pregnant women and paired 959 newborns. Depending on the type of chorionicity, subjects were stratified into two study groups being further subdivided into based on describing fetal weight discordance. The antenatal period and the neonatal outcome of newborns in groups and subgroups were compared.
Results. We analyzed 308 dichorionic and 177 monochorionic twin pregnancies. It was found that neonate discordant growth was observed in 5.4 % and 13.4 % (p < 0.001), respectively. The incidence of assisted reproductive technologies was higher in dichorionic than in monochorionic twins comprising 66.5 and 40.7 % (р < 0.001). Antenatal mortality in monochorionic vs. dichorionic twins was by 8-fold higher. The preterm birth rate in monochorionic vs. dichorionic twins was 74.6 and 62.7% (p = 0.009), respectively. Neonate body weight in monochorionic vs. dichorionic twins was lowered comprising 1991 and 2430 gr. (р < 0.001), respectively. Low Apgar scores were more common for monochorionic twins with discordant body weight. The rate of early neonatal mortality in monochorionic vs. dichorionic twins was 4.4 % vs. 1.5 % (p = 0.009), whereas in dichorionic vs. monochorionic twins with weight discordance it was up to 5.8 and 10.5% (р < 0.001), respectively.
Conclusion. Monochorionic twin pregnancy complicated with growth discordance is associated with a higher risk of adverse antenatal period as well as neonatal morbidity and mortality compared to symmetric DCDA twins. Chorionicity and growth discordancy represent important predictors for outcome of twin pregnancy.

1. Blickstein I. Normal and abnormal growth of multiples. Semin Neonatol. 2002;7(3):177-85. https://doi.org/10.1053/siny.2002.0105.

2. Lewi L, Devlieger R, De Catte L, Deprest J. Growth discordance. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;28(2):295-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.12.003.

3. Miller J., Chauhan S.P., Abuhamad A.Z. Discordant twins: diagnosis, evaluation and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(1):10-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.06.075.

4. Visintin C., Mugglestone M.A., James D., Kilby M.D.; Guideline Development Group. Antenatal care for twin and triplet pregnancies: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2011;343:d5714. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5714.

5. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 134: fetal growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(5):1122-33. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000429658.85846.f9.

6. D'Antonio F., Odibo A.O., Prefumo F. et al. Weight discordance and perinatal mortality in twin pregnancy: systematic review and metaanalysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;52(1):11-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.18966.

7. Machado M., Teixeira E.L., Ferreira L.M. et al. Perinatal outcome in relation to chorionicity in twin pregnancy. Acta Med Port. 2017;30(1):12-6. https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.7133.

8. McLennan A.S., Gyamfi-Bannerman C., Ananth C.V. et al. The role of maternal age in twin pregnancy outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(1):80.e1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.03.002.

9. Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK). Prospective risk of late stillbirth in monochorionic twins: a regional cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39(5):500-4. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.11110.

10. Tul N., Verdenik I., Novak Z. et al. Prospective risk of stillbirth in monochorionic-diamniotic twin gestations: a population based study. J Perinat Med. 2011;39(1):51-4. https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm.2010.110.

11. Carter E.B., Bishop K.C., Goetzinger K.R. et al. The impact of chorionicity on maternal pregnancy outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(3):390-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2018.1427719.

12. Lee H.J., Kim S.H., Chang K.H. et al. Gestational age at delivery and neonatal outcome in uncomplicated twin pregnancies: what is the optimal gestational age for delivery according to chorionicity? Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2016;59(1):9-16. https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.2016.59.1.9.

13. Fumagalli M., Schiavolin P., Bassi L. et al. The impact of twin birth on early neonatal outcomes. Am J Perinatol. 2016;33(1):63-70. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1556881.

14. Garabedian C., Poulain C., Duhamel A. et al. Intrapartum management of twin pregnancies: are uncomplicated monochorionic pregnancies more at risk of complications than dichorionic pregnancies? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(3):301-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12558.

15. Hack K.E., Derks J.B., Elias S.G. et al. Increased perinatal mortality and morbidity in monochorionic versus dichorionic twin pregnancies: clinical implications of a large Dutch cohort study. BJOG. 2008;115(1):58-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01556.x.

16. D'Antonio F., Khalil A., Dias T., Thilaganathan B. Early fetal loss in monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies: analysis of the Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK) multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(6):632-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12363.

17. Callaghan W.M., MacDorman M.F., Rasmussen S.A. et al. The contribution of preterm birth to infant mortality rates in the United States. Pediatrics. 2006;118(4):1566-73. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-0860.

18. Masheer S., Islam Z., Dileep D., Munim S. Twin chorionicity and prospective stillbirth risk: experience at a tertiary care hospital. J Pak Med Assoc. 2017;67(3):360-4.

19. Di Mascio D., Acharya G., Khalil A. et al. Birthweight discordance and neonatal morbidity in twin pregnancies: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019;98(10):1245-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13613.