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-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T20:51:35.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 40 - Selective Termination of One Fetus in Monochorionic Twin Pregnancies

from Complications of Monochorionic Multiple Pregnancy: Multifetal Reduction in Multiple Pregnancy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2019

By
Min Chen  and
Tak Yeung Leung
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

Monochorionic (MC) twin pregnancy is associated with special complications that are unique to the shared placenta and vascular anastomoses. These complications include twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS), selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR), twin reverse arterial perfusion sequence (TRAPS), twin anemia-polycythemia sequence (TAPS), and conjoined twins [1]. Furthermore, the incidence of discordant structural anomalies is more common in MC twins (6–8%) than in dichorionic (DC) twins (1–2%). In these conditions, selective reduction of one of the MC twins may have to be considered to maximize the chance of survival of the co-twin, or to minimize the risk to it. Unlike DC twin pregnancies in which their placentas have no vascular anastomoses, MC twins are connected via multiple vascular channels between their fused placenta [2]. Therefore, intracardiac KCl injection is not a feasible option in MC twin pregnancies [3]. Hence selective reduction must aim specifically at stopping the target twin’s umbilical blood flow, either at the umbilical cord level, or at the intra-abdominal portion of its vessels just beneath its insertion site (intrafetal), using more sophisticated methods. In this chapter, various indications and different surgical methods of selective reduction, as well as the comparison between the methods, are discussed.

Type
Chapter
Information
Fetal Therapy
Scientific Basis and Critical Appraisal of Clinical Benefits
 , pp. 418 - 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

Khalil, A, Rodgers, M, Baschat, A, et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: role of ultrasound in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 47: 247–63.Google Scholar
Wimalasundera, RC. Selective reduction and termination of multiple pregnancies. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010; 15: 327–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
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 ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bebbington, M. Selective reduction in complex monochorionic gestations. Am J Perinatol. 2014; 31 (Suppl. 1): S51–8.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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 ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 [email protected] 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
×