4.3 Article

Respiratory distress in heavier versus lighter twins

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERINATAL MEDICINE
卷 29, 期 1, 页码 60-63

出版社

WALTER DE GRUYTER & CO
DOI: 10.1515/JPM.2001.008

关键词

neonatal; respiratory distress; twins

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We performed a retrospective study of twin pairs under 36 weeks gestation admitted to a regional neonatal unit over a three year period to determine if the larger twin of a twin pair is at increased risk of respiratory distress in the immediate postnatal period compared to the smaller twin. Gestation, gender. birth weight. mode and reason for delivery, birth order. and Apgar at 5 minutes were correlated with the need for added oxygen at 4 hours, the need for ventilation, oxygen requirement at 28 days and mortality. One hundred and twenty-four twin pairs were analyzed with a median gestation of 31 weeks (range 23-35). There were 47 female-female pairs, 40 male-male pairs and 37 mixed pairs. Multiple logistic regression revealed no significant increased risk for ventilation in male, heavier or second twins. The need for oxygen at 4 hours was strongly associated with being male and being the second twin, but not with being the heavier twin. However, on analysis of twins of 28 weeks gestation or above a significant association was found between a persisting oxygen requirement at 4 hours and being male (OR2.2; 95% CI 1.15-4.16), being the heavier twin (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.03-3.46), and being the second twin (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.48-4.99). No association was found between mortality and being male, and being the second or smaller twins. Conclusion Heavier twins above 28 weeks gestation are at increased risk of short term mild respiratory problems following delivery compared to lighter twins at the same gestation. This is not as strong a factor as birth order or male gender, bur it is important to be aware of this in ante natal counselling of the parents as the smaller twin is usually perceived to be at greater risk of morbidity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据