Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:58:56.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Time Trends in Characteristics and Outcome of Twin Pregnancies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

L. Moreault ,
S. Marcoux ,
J. Fabia  and
S. Tennina
L. Moreault
Affiliation:
Epidemiology Research Unit, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada
S. Marcoux*
Affiliation:
Epidemiology Research Unit, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada
J. Fabia
Affiliation:
Epidemiology Research Unit, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada
S. Tennina
Affiliation:
Epidemiology Research Unit, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada
*
Epidemiology Research Unit, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Sainte-Foy, Qc, Canada GIK 7P4

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study describes the evolution in fetal and neonatal mortality rates among twin pairs born in 22 hospitals located in the eastern regions of the province of Quebec in 1976-1978 (n = 776 pairs) and 1982-1985 (n = 712 pairs). It also assesses the contribution of maternal factors, obstetrical care and characteristics of twins in the variation of the risk of death over time. The fetal mortality rate did not improve from 1976-1978 (22.6 per 1000) to 1982-1985 (28.1 per 1000). However, the neonatal mortality rate declined from 44.7 to 34.7 per 1000 liveborn first twins and from 56.8 to 36.1 per 1000 liveborn second twins. For first twins as for second twins, birthweight-specific neonatal mortality rates decreased within birth weight categories under 2500 g. In the second period, 96.9% of twin pregnancies were detected before confinement compared to 59.6% in the earlier period. The proportion of twins delivered by obstetricians, the percentage of twin births occurring in ultraspecialized perinatal units and the frequency of caesarean sections increased markedly. The proportion of preterm births increased over time (34.5% vs 43.1%) whereas the percentage of low birthweight twins decreased but not significantly (54.3% 51.6%). In this study, changes in maternal age, parity, educational level, sex of pairs, qualification of the physician, and level of care available at the hospital of birth, did not account for the decrease in neonatal mortality rates among twins. The increase in the frequency of caesarean sections seemed to explain only a small proportion of the decrease in the neonatal mortality rate among second twins. In the second as well as in the first period, the neonatal mortality rate for twins was six times higher than that for singletons.

Keywords

Twin pregnancyFetal mortalityNeonatal mortalityCaesarean section
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , April 1991 , pp. 181 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1991

References

REFERENCES

1.Bakketeig, LS, Eik-Nes, SH, Jacobsen, G, Ulstein, MK, Brodtkorb, CJ, Balstad, P, Eriksen, BC, Jorgensen, NP (1984): Randomised controlled trial of ultrasonographic screening in pregnancy. Lancet 2: 207–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Bell, D, Johansson, D, McLean, FH, Usher, RH (1986): Birth asphyxia, trauma and mortality in twins: Has cesarean section improved outcome? Am J Obstet Gynecol 154: 235–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Blickstein, I, Schwartz-Shoham, Z, Lancet, M, Borenstein, R (1987): Vaginal delivery of the second twin in breech presentation. Obstet Gynecol 69: 774–776.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Chervenak, FA, Johnson, RE, Berkowitz, RL, Grannum, P, Hobbins, JC (1984): Is presentation cesarean section necessary for vertex-breech and vertex-transverse twin gestations? Am J Obstet Gynecol 148: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Chervenak, FA, Johnson, RE, Youcha, S, Hobbins, JC, Berkowitz, RL (1985): Intrapartum management of twin gestation. Obstet Gynecol 65: 119–124.Google Scholar
6.Desgranges, MF, DeMuylder, X, Moutquin, JM, Lazaro-Lopez, F, Leduc, B (1982): Perinatal profile of twin pregnancies: A retrospective review of 11 years (1969-1979) at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montréal, Canada. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 31: 157–163.Google ScholarPubMed
7.Eik-Nes, SH, Okland, O, Aure, JC, Ulstein, M (1984). Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1:1347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Fabia, J (1979): Mortalité périnatale au Québec: II. Jumeaux. Vie Médicale au Canada Français 8: 28–35.Google Scholar
9.Fabia, J, Drolette, M (1980): Twin pairs, smoking in pregnancy and perinatal mortality. Am J Epidemiol 112: 404–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Goldenberg, RL, Davis, RO, Cutter, GR, Hoffman, HJ, Brumfield, CG, Foster, JM (1989): Prematurity, postdates, and growth retardation: The influence of ultrasonography on reported gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 160: 462–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Hartikainen-Sorri, A-L, Kauppila, A, Tuimala, R, Koivisto, M (1983): Factors related to an improved outcome for twins. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 62: 23–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Kauppila, A, Jouppila, P, Koivisto, M, Moilanen, I, Ylikorkala, O (1975): Twin pregnancy — A clinical study of 335 cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 54(Suppl):5–12.Google Scholar
13.McCarthy, BJ, Sachs, BP, Layde, PM, Burton, A, Terry, JS, Rochat, R (1981): The epidemiology of neonatal deaths in twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol 141: 252–256.Google Scholar
14.Miettinen, OS (1976): Estimability and estimation in case-referent studies. Am J Epidemiol 103: 226–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Morand, G, Guimond, P (1974): Grossesse multiple: G.A.R.E. et F.A.R.E. Union Med Can 103: 296–300.Google ScholarPubMed
16.O'Connor, MC, Murphy, H, Dalrymple, IJ (1979): Double blind trial of ritodrine and placebo in twin pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 86: 706–709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Olofsson, P, Rydhstrom, H (1985): Twin delivery: how should the second twin be delivered? Am J Obstet Gynecol 153: 479–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Osbourne, GK, Patel, NB (1985): An assessment of perinatal mortality in twin pregnancies in Dundee. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 34: 193–199.Google ScholarPubMed
19.Paneth, N, Kiely, JL, Wallenstein, S, Marcus, M, Pakter, J, Susser, M (1982): Newborn intensive care and neonatal mortality in low-birth-weight infants. N Engl J Med 307: 149–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Persson, P-H, Grennert, L, Gennser, G, Kullander, S (1979): On improved outcome of twin pregnancies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 58: 3–7.Google Scholar
21.Pettersson, F, Smedby, B, Lindmark, G (1976): Outcome of twin birth: Review of 1636 children born in twin birth. Acta Paediatr Scand 65: 473–479.Google Scholar
22.Rabinovici, J, Barkai, G, Reichman, B, Serr, DM, Mashiach, S (1987): Randomized management of the second nonvertex twin: Vaginal delivery or cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 156: 52–56.Google Scholar
23.Saari-Kemppainen, A, Karjalainen, O, Ylostalo, P, Heinone, OP (1990): Ultrasound screening and perinatal mortality: Controlled trial of systematic one-stage screening in pregnancy. Lancet 336: 387–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Saunders, MC, Dick, JS, Brown, IMcL, McPherson, K, Chalmers, I (1985): The effets of hospital admission for bed rest on the duration of twin pregnancy: A randomized trial. Lancet 2: 793–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Smith, AP, Campbell, D (1988): Routine ultrasound scanning in twin pregnancies. Lancet 2:1029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Waldenstrom, U, Axelsson, O, Nilsson, S, Eklund, G, Fall, O, Lindeberg, S, Sjodin, Y (1988): Effects of routine one-stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2: 585–588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed