4.1 Article

Characteristics of hypertensive disorders in twin versus singleton pregnancies

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.preghy.2012.05.005

Keywords

Twins; Hypertension; Pre-eclampsia; Maternal; Neonatal outcomes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine the characteristics of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in twin compared with singleton pregnancies. Study design: Analysis of a prospectively recorded database of 4976 hypertensive pregnancies. Main outcome measures: Comparison of progression to pre-eclampsia and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Results: There were 3942 singleton and 214 twin pregnancies. De novo hypertension in twin pregnancy was diagnosed earlier (p < 0.001). In singleton pregnancies with de novo hypertension (n = 3161), 60% had an initial diagnosis of gestational hypertension (GH) and 40% had pre-eclampsia (PE). In twin pregnancies with de novo hypertension (n = 199), 35% of women were initially diagnosed with GH and 65% with PE (p < 0.001). At delivery, 46% of the singletons had GH and 54% had PE, compared with twin pregnancies where 23% had GH and 77 % had PE (p < 0.001). The progression from GH to PE for twins was twice that of singleton pregnancies (p < 0.001). Results: There were 781 singleton and 15 twin pregnancies with chronic hypertension (CH). Twin pregnancies complicated by CH were more likely to progress to PE than singletons (p < 0.01). The gestation at delivery was earlier for twin pregnancies (p < 0.001) and there were more twins that were smaller for gestational age (p < 0.001). There were no differences in maternal outcomes. Conclusion: Women carrying twins with de novo hypertension are more likely to present earlier, have initial PE and to subsequently progress from GH to PE. Neonatal outcomes are worse in such pregnancies. (C) 2012 International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available