4.2 Article

Incidence and Causes of Intentional Fetal or Neonatal Demise in Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome

Journal

FETAL DIAGNOSIS AND THERAPY
Volume 43, Issue 1, Pages 19-25

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000461580

Keywords

Twin-twin transfusion syndrome; Termination of pregnancy; Selective fetal reduction; Withdrawal of neonatal intensive care; Fetoscopic laser therapy; Cerebral injury

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The aim of this study is to evaluate the incidence and causes of intentional fetal and neonatal demise in twin-twin transfusion syndrome ( TTTS). Material and Methods: All TTTS pregnancies managed at our centre between 2000 and 2014 were included. We evaluated incidence and causes of intentional fetal/neonatal demise, defined as termination of pregnancy, selective fetal reduction, or withdrawal of neonatal intensive care. Results: Intentional fetal/neonatal demise occurred in 9.8% (110/1,122) of fetuses and was due to termination of pregnancy (2.2%), selective fetal reduction (4.2%), or withdrawal of neonatal intensive care (3.4%). Reasons for termination of pregnancy included complications of laser treatment (72.0%), severe fetal anomaly (20.0%), and unwanted pregnancy (8.0%). Reasons for selective fetal reduction were technical difficulties to perform laser surgery (51.1%), fetal complications (38.3%), and parental preference for fetal reduction rather than laser treatment (10.6%). Reasons for withdrawal of neonatal intensive care treatment were severe cerebral injury (47.4%), severe pulmonary complications (15.8%), birth asphyxia (5.3%), multiple complications of TTTS and/or prematurity combined (21.1%), or other (10.5%). Conclusions: Intentional fetal or neonatal demise in TTTS occurs frequently and is often due to complications after laser surgery and/or severe (cerebral) injury in affected fetuses or neonates. (C) 2017 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available