Effect of Chorionicity on Umbilical Cord Blood Acid-Base Analysis of the Second Twin

3Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Our objective was to determine whether chorionicity affects umbilical cord blood acid-base parameters of the second twin. This was a retrospective cohort of twin pregnancies delivered at ≥23 weeks of gestation at a tertiary hospital from 2010 to 2016. Patients were included if arterial and venous umbilical cord gas results were available for both newborns and chorionicity was confirmed histologically. Exclusion criteria included intrauterine fetal demise of either twin prior to labor, major fetal anomalies, monoamnionicity, uncertain chronicity and twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. The primary outcome evaluated was the umbilical artery (UA) pH of the second twin. A total of 593 dichorionic (DC) and 86 monochorionic (MC) twin pregnancies were included. No difference in UA pH was observed between MC and DC twins. Among vaginal deliveries (n = 97), the UA pH of the first twin was higher than the second twin (7.26 vs. 7.24; p =.01). Twin-to-twin delivery interval (TTDI) ≥20 min was associated with a higher UA pH in the first twin compared to the second twin (7.25 vs. 7.16, respectively; p =.006). Multivariable logistic regression was used to predict arterial pH < 7.20 for the second twin; the most predictive factors were arterial pH < 7.20 for the first twin, chronic hypertension and prolonged TTDI. Chorionicity was not associated with any acid-base parameter of umbilical cord blood in either the first or second twin. No differences in neonatal outcomes were observed based on chorionicity or birth order. Populations with a lower cesarean delivery rate may yield different findings.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Blitz, M. J., Rochelson, B., Benja-Athonsirikul, N., Shan, W., Greenberg, M., & Bracero, L. A. (2020). Effect of Chorionicity on Umbilical Cord Blood Acid-Base Analysis of the Second Twin. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 23(3), 178–183. https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2020.10

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free