Lopian Miriam, Kashani-Ligumsky Lior, Cohen Ronnie, Wiener Izaak, Amir Bat-Chen, Gold Zamir Yael, Many Ariel, Rosen Hadar
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayanei Hayeshua Medical Center, Bnei Brak 51544, Israel.
Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel.
J Clin Med. 2023 Mar 4;12(5):2041. doi: 10.3390/jcm12052041.
To determine and compare the safety and efficacy of different methods of induction of labor in twin gestations and their effect on maternal and neonatal outcomes.
A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted at a single university-affiliated medical center. Patients with a twin gestation undergoing induction of labor at >32 + 0 weeks comprised the study group. Outcomes were compared to patients with a twin gestation at >32 + 0 weeks who went into labor spontaneously. The primary outcome was cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes included operative vaginal delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, uterine rupture, 5 min APGAR < 7, and umbilical artery pH < 7.1. A subgroup analysis comparing outcomes for the induction of labor with oral prostaglandin E1 (PGE1), IV Oxytocin ± artificial rupture of membranes (AROM), and extra-amniotic balloon (EAB)+ IV Oxytocin was performed. Data were analyzed using Fisher's exact test, ANOVA, and chi-square tests.
268 patients who underwent induction of labor with a twin gestation comprised the study group. 450 patients with a twin gestation who went into labor spontaneously comprised the control group. There were no clinically significant differences between the groups for maternal age, gestational age, neonatal birthweight, birthweight discordancy, and non-vertex second twin. There were significantly more nulliparas in the study group compared to the control group (23.9% vs. 13.8% < 0.001). The study group was significantly more likely to undergo a cesarean delivery of at least one twin (12.3% vs. 7.5% OR, 1.7 95% CI 1.04-2.85 = 0.03). However, there was no significant difference in the rate of operative vaginal delivery (15.3% vs. 19.6% OR, 0.74, 95% CI 0.5-1.1 = 0.16), PPH (5.2% vs. 6.9% OR, 0.75 95% CI 0.39-1.42 = 0.37), 5-min APGAR scores < 7 (0% vs. 0.2% OR, 0.99 95%CI 0.99-1.00 = 0.27), umbilical artery pH < 7.1 (1.5% vs. 1.3% OR, 1.12 95% CI 0.3-4.0), or combined adverse outcome (7.8% vs. 8.7% OR, 0.93 95% CI 0.6-1.4 = 0.85). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the rates of cesarean delivery or combined adverse outcomes in patients undergoing induction with oral PGE1 compared to IV Oxytocin ± AROM (13.3% vs. 12.5% OR, 1.1 95% CI 0.4-2.0 = 1.0) (7% vs. 9.3% OR, 0.77 95% CI 0.5-3.5 = 0.63 ) or EAB+ IV Oxytocin (13.3% vs. 6.9% OR, 2.1 95% CI 0.1-2.1 = 0.53) (7% vs. 6.9% OR, 1.4 95% CI 0.15-3.5 = 0.5) or between patients undergoing induction of labor with IV Oxytocin ± AROM and EAB+ IV Oxytocin (12.5% vs. 6.9% OR, 2.1 95% CI 0.1-2.4 = 0.52) (9.3% vs. 6.9% OR, 0.98 95% CI 0.2-4.7 = 0.54). There were no cases of uterine rupture in our study.
Induction of labor in twin gestations is associated with a two-fold increased risk of cesarean delivery, although this is not associated with adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes. Furthermore, the method of induction of labor used does not affect the chances of success nor the rate of adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes.
确定并比较双胎妊娠不同引产方法的安全性和有效性及其对孕产妇和新生儿结局的影响。
在一家大学附属医院进行了一项回顾性观察队列研究。孕周>32 + 0周的双胎妊娠引产患者组成研究组。将结局与孕周>32 + 0周自然临产的双胎妊娠患者进行比较。主要结局是剖宫产。次要结局包括阴道助产、产后出血、子宫破裂、5分钟阿氏评分<7以及脐动脉pH<7.1。对口服前列腺素E1(PGE1)引产、静脉滴注缩宫素±人工破膜(AROM)引产和羊膜外球囊(EAB)+静脉滴注缩宫素引产的结局进行亚组分析。数据采用Fisher精确检验、方差分析和卡方检验进行分析。
研究组包括268例双胎妊娠引产患者。对照组包括450例双胎妊娠自然临产患者。两组在产妇年龄、孕周、新生儿出生体重、出生体重差异和非头位第二胎儿方面无临床显著差异。与对照组相比,研究组初产妇明显更多(23.9%对13.8%,P<0.001)。研究组至少有一个胎儿行剖宫产的可能性明显更高(12.3%对7.5%,OR 1.7,95%CI 1.04 - 2.85,P = 0.03)。然而,阴道助产率(15.3%对19.6%,OR 0.74,95%CI 0.5 - 1.1,P = 0.16)、产后出血率(5.2%对6.9%,OR 0.75,95%CI 0.39 - 1.42,P = 0.37)、5分钟阿氏评分<7的比例(0%对0.2%,OR 0.99,95%CI 0.99 - 1.00,P = 0.27)、脐动脉pH<7.1的比例(1.5%对1.3%,OR 1.12,95%CI 0.3 - 4.0)或联合不良结局比例(7.8%对8.7%,OR 0.93,95%CI 0.6 - 1.4,P = 0.85)均无显著差异。此外,口服PGE1引产患者与静脉滴注缩宫素±AROM引产患者相比,剖宫产率或联合不良结局率无显著差异(13.3%对12.5%,OR 1.1,95%CI 0.4 - 2.0,P = 1.0)(7%对9.3%,OR 0.77,95%CI 0.5 - 3.5,P = 0.63);与EAB +静脉滴注缩宫素引产患者相比也无显著差异(13.3%对6.9%,OR 2.1,95%CI 0.1 - 2.1,P = 0.53)(7%对6.9%,OR 1.4,95%CI 0.15 - 3.5,P = 0.5);静脉滴注缩宫素±AROM引产患者与EAB +静脉滴注缩宫素引产患者相比同样无显著差异(12.5%对6.9%,OR 2.1,95%CI 0.1 - 2.4,P = 0.52)(9.3%对6.9%,OR 0.98,95%CI 0.2 - 4.7,P = 0.54)。本研究中无子宫破裂病例。
双胎妊娠引产与剖宫产风险增加两倍相关,尽管这与孕产妇或新生儿不良结局无关。此外,所采用的引产方法不影响成功几率,也不影响孕产妇或新生儿不良结局的发生率。