Minimising perinatal mortality in twins: planned birth at 38 weeks of gestation for dichorionic and 36 weeks of gestation for monochorionic twins
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Given the increasing prevalence of twins and the higher rates of late-preterm and early-term fetal death, compared with singletons, the pragmatic question is: when should twins be delivered in the absence of standard maternal/fetal criteria? This is a challenging research question. Because rates of fetal and neonatal death near full term are low, investigators must randomise enormous numbers of women to iatrogenic birth at, say, 36–37 weeks of gestation, versus expectant management. Were such a trial performed, it might only estimate the risks/benefits of planned birth for that week. Even if resources were available, covariates such as chorionicity and maternal comorbidities might be troublesome, as subgroup analyses would have diminished power. Significant limitations in the existing epidemiological data include imprecise timing of fetal death, defaulting to birth. This overestimates the rates of later stillbirth, making planned birth appear more favourable. Another problem is missing chorionicity: risks are higher in monochorionic compared with dichorionic placentation. To overcome these deficiencies, Dr Wood and colleagues performed an analysis of a 15–year period from the Alberta Perinatal Health Project database to find 17 875 twins alive at 23 weeks of gestation, a cohort that included 202 fetal and 244 neonatal deaths (Tables S1, S2). With this sample they were able to construct a graph of the weekly risk of fetal death in undelivered gestations, observing a spike in the fetal death rate at 38 weeks of gestation (Figure S1). They also computed a weekly risk ratio of neonatal versus fetal death: a ratio of <1 favoured delivery. Although this point estimate fell below unity at 36 weeks of gestation, by 38 weeks of gestation the ratio became statistically significant (Figure S3). This effect was more pronounced earlier, in the monochorionic subgroup (Figure S2). They further observed that small for gestational age (birthweight <5th centile) and an inter-twin discordance of >20% were significant predictors of fetal death. Note that birthweights and not sonographic estimates, which were available to clinicians, were used. Other important limitations, as noted by the authors, include missing information on pregnancy (?mis)management: e.g. was ultrasound used to detect growth restriction and discordance so that fetal surveillance could avert fetal death and prolong gestation? Perhaps the biggest limitation is the missing neonatal morbidities that would accrue from late-preterm and near-term births. This imposes ‘trade-off’ decisions: delivering late preterm averts fetal death but incurs neonatal morbidity. Thus, although the investigators performed a thorough death-metric comparison, the imponderable question is: how many cases of neonatal morbidity balance one fetal death? These limitations notwithstanding, this is a timely analysis and makes a significant contribution to understanding the natural history and gestational age at birth of twins: they confirm that the rate of fetal death in twins is very low. The authors also correctly assert that with such low rates of fetal death, especially in dichorionic twins, clinicians and patients might not be persuaded that early delivery is necessary, in light of the known higher morbidities. Perhaps the best way to use these findings clinically is to recognise and not exceed their lower bounds (i.e. 36 weeks of gestation for monochorionic twins; 38 weeks of gestation for dichorionic twins) when considering planned twin birth without justifiable maternal/fetal indications. Dr Owen has no conflicts of interest to report.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».