Dataset Information

Should singleton birth weight standards be applied to identify small-for-gestational age twins?: analysis of a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Twin birth weight percentiles are less popular in clinical management among twin pregnancies compared with singleton ones in China. This study aimed to compare the incidence and neonatal outcomes of small for gestational age (SGA) twins between the use of singleton and twin birth weight percentiles.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of 3,027 pregnancies with liveborn twin pairs at gestational age of > 28 weeks. The newborns were categorized as SGA when a birthweight was less than the 10th percentile based on the singleton and twin references derived from Chinese population. Logistic regression models with generalized estimated equation (GEE) were utilized to evaluate the association between SGA twins and neonatal outcomes including neonatal unit admission, neonatal jaundice, neonatal respiratory distress (NRDS), neonatal asphyxia, ventilator support, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), culture-proven sepsis, neonatal death within 28 days after birth as well as the composite outcome.

Results

The incidence of SGA was 33.1 % based on the singleton reference and 7.3 % based on the twin reference. Both of SGA newborns defined by the singleton and twin references were associated with increases in neonatal unit admission, neonatal jaundice and ventilator support. In addition, SGA newborns defined by the twin reference were associated with increased rates of BPD (aOR, 2.61; 95 % CI: 1.18-5.78) as well as the severe composite outcome (aOR, 1.93; 95 % CI: 1.07-3.47).

Conclusions

The use of singleton birth weight percentiles may result in misdiagnosed SGA newborns in twin gestations and the twin birth weight percentiles would be more useful to identify those who are at risk of adverse outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Lin D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8234673 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDespite the increased perinatal risks associated with pregnancies conceived with infertility treatment, there are no recommendations for timing of delivery among this at-risk population.ObjectiveTo identify the gestational age at which the ongoing risks of stillbirth are optimally balanced with the risks of neonatal comorbidities and infant deaths in term singleton pregnancies conceived with infertility treatment.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used birth and death data from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, in the US obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics. Singleton pregnancies conceived with infertility treatment delivered at term (37-42 weeks' gestation) were eligible for inclusion. The exclusion criteria were deliveries at less than 37 weeks' or at least 43 weeks' gestation and pregnancies with unknown history of infertility treatment, congenital anomalies, pregestational diabetes, pregestational hypertension, gestational hypertension, and preeclampsia. Data were analyzed from July 22, 2022, to June 24, 2023.ExposureGestational age at delivery between 37 and 42 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was optimal timing of delivery. To ascertain this timing, the risk of delivery (rate of neonatal morbidity and infant death) at a given gestational week was compared with the risk of delivery in the subsequent week of gestation for an additional week (rate of stillbirth during the given week per 10 000 ongoing pregnancies plus rate of neonatal morbidity and infant death in the subsequent week of gestation per 10 000 deliveries). The rates of stillbirth, neonatal morbidity, and infant death (within 1 year of life) were compared at each week. Neonatal morbidity included an Apgar score of 3 or lower at 5 minutes, requirement of ventilation for 6 hours or more, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and seizures.ResultsOf the 178 448 singleton term pregnancies conceived with infertility treatment (maternal mean [SD] age, 34.2 [5.2] years; mean [SD] gestational age, 39.2 [1.2] weeks; 130 786 [73.5%] were non-Hispanic White patients). The risk of delivery in the subsequent week of gestation was lower than the risk of delivery at both 37 weeks (628 [95% CI, 601-656] vs 1005 [95% CI, 961-1050] per 10 000 live births) and 38 weeks (483 [95% CI, 467-500 vs 625 [95% CI, 598-652] per 10 000 live births). The risks of delivery in subsequent week of gestation significantly exceeded the risk of delivery at 39 weeks (599 [95% CI, 576-622] vs 479 [95% CI, 463-495] per 10 000 live births) and were not significant at 40 weeks (639 [95% CI, 605-675] vs 594 [95% CI, 572-617] per 10 000 live births) and 41 weeks (701 [95% CI, 628-781] vs 633 [95% CI, 599-669] per 10 000 live births).Conclusions and relevanceResults of this study suggest that, in pregnancies conceived with infertility treatment, delivery at 39 weeks provided the lowest perinatal risk when comparing risk of delivery at this week of gestation vs the subsequent week of gestation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Japan has an exceptionally high proportion of low-weight births and underweight women. It has been suggested that an appropriate increase in gestational weight gain (GWG) for underweight women will help to prevent low birth weight. The current strategy aims to raise the desired value of GWG equally for all pregnant women within the underweight category. However, it remains elusive whether or not the relationship between GWG and birth weight for gestational age (BW/GA) are uniformly equivalent for all the women. METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of women who delivered their newborns at Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital from 2013 to 2017. First, in order to examine the direct effect of an increase or decrease in GWG on BW/GA, we analyzed the correlation between inter-pregnancy differences in GWG and BW/GA using a sub-cohort of women who experienced two deliveries during the study period (n = 75). Second, we dichotomized the main cohort (n = 1114) according to BW/GA to verify our hypothesis that the correlation between GWG and BW/GA differs depending on the size of the newborn. RESULTS:The inter-pregnancy difference in BW/GA was not correlated with that of GWG. However, the correlation between BW/GA of siblings was high (r = 0.63, p = 1.9 × 10- 9). The correlation between GWG and BW/GA in women who delivered larger-sized newborns was higher (r = 0.17, p = 4.1 × 10- 5) than that in women who delivered smaller-sized newborns (r = 0.099, p = 1.9 × 10- 2). This disparity did not change after adjustment for pre-pregnancy BMI. The mean birth weight in the dichotomized groups corresponded to percentile 52.0 and 13.4 of the international newborn size assessed by INTERGROWTH-21st standards. CONCLUSIONS:In our study, GWG was positively correlated with BW/GA for heavier neonates whose birth weights were similar to the average neonatal weight according to world standards. However, caution might be required for low-birth-weight neonates because increased GWG does not always result in increased birth weight.