Increased latency of absent end‐diastolic flow in the umbilical artery of monochorionic twin fetuses
Objective
To determine if absent end‐diastolic flow (AEDF) in the umbilical artery (UA) has a longer latency in monochorionic (MC) twin fetuses compared to singleton or dichorionic twin (DC) fetuses.
Methods
One hundred and eight pregnancies with a fetus with AEDF were reviewed: 47 MC and 17 DC twin pregnancies and 44 singletons. Because twin–twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) is a potential confounder when determining latency, subgroup analysis was also performed on the 21 MC affected pregnancies without TTTS. Latency of AEDF (in days) was defined as the difference between the gestational age at diagnosis of AEDF and gestational age at delivery or intrauterine death.
Results
Latency was similar in MC twins (median, 39 days) and DC twins (30 days) but longer compared to singletons (11 days; P = 0.0001). After excluding pregnancies with TTTS, latency in non‐TTTS MC twins (54 days) was longer than in both singletons and DC twins. This was due to an earlier gestational age at AEDF in non‐TTTS MC twins of 20 weeks compared to 27 weeks in both singleton and DC twins because median gestational age at delivery was similar in MC twins, DC twins and singletons.
Conclusions
The latency period of UA AEDF is longer in MC twins than in singletons. Our data suggest that in MC twin fetuses without TTTS, AEDF begins earlier and lasts about twice as long as in DC twin fetuses, which is consistent with placental insufficiency not being the sole factor mediating abnormal UA waveforms in MC placentation. This observation is important in counseling and managing twin pregnancies discordant for AEDF. Copyright © 2005 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
To determine if absent end‐diastolic flow (AEDF) in the umbilical artery (UA) has a longer latency in monochorionic (MC) twin fetuses compared to singleton or dichorionic twin (DC) fetuses.
Methods
One hundred and eight pregnancies with a fetus with AEDF were reviewed: 47 MC and 17 DC twin pregnancies and 44 singletons. Because twin–twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) is a potential confounder when determining latency, subgroup analysis was also performed on the 21 MC affected pregnancies without TTTS. Latency of AEDF (in days) was defined as the difference between the gestational age at diagnosis of AEDF and gestational age at delivery or intrauterine death.
Results
Latency was similar in MC twins (median, 39 days) and DC twins (30 days) but longer compared to singletons (11 days; P = 0.0001). After excluding pregnancies with TTTS, latency in non‐TTTS MC twins (54 days) was longer than in both singletons and DC twins. This was due to an earlier gestational age at AEDF in non‐TTTS MC twins of 20 weeks compared to 27 weeks in both singleton and DC twins because median gestational age at delivery was similar in MC twins, DC twins and singletons.
Conclusions
The latency period of UA AEDF is longer in MC twins than in singletons. Our data suggest that in MC twin fetuses without TTTS, AEDF begins earlier and lasts about twice as long as in DC twin fetuses, which is consistent with placental insufficiency not being the sole factor mediating abnormal UA waveforms in MC placentation. This observation is important in counseling and managing twin pregnancies discordant for AEDF. Copyright © 2005 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
No References
No Citations
No Supplementary Data
No Data/Media
No Metrics
Keywords: absent end‐diastolic flow; latency; monochorionic twins; umbilical artery Doppler
Document Type: Research Article
Affiliations: 1: Centre for Fetal Care, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, and Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, London, UK 2: Unità di Medicina Materno Fetale, Clinica Ostetrica e Ginecologica, Spedali Civili, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
Publication date: 2005-07-01
- As of January 2010, this journal will no longer be available on IngentaConnect, please visit Wiley InterScience to arrange continued access to this content
- Access this journal at Wiley InterScience
- Ingenta Connect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites