|
|
||||||||
ORIGINAL RESEARCH |
From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Carilion Center for Women and Children, Roanoke, Virginia; Prematurity Center, Memphis, Tennessee; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Tennessee at Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee; and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Address reprint requests to: Jeffrey C. Livingston, MD, Prenatal Diagnostic Center, Carilion Health System, 102 Highland Avenue, Suite 455 Roanoke, VA 24013; e-mail: jlivingston{at}carilion.com.
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
METHODS: A review of maternal and fetal medical records was performed at 2 tertiary care centers over 12 years. Charts were identified by the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes for twin and triplet gestations. Asynchronous delivery was defined as an active attempt (tocolysis and/or emergent cerclage placement) to increase latency between delivery of the first fetus and subsequent fetuses.
RESULTS: Fourteen cases of asynchronous delivery were identified out of 96,922 deliveries including 1,352 pregnancies complicated by multifetal gestation. The occurrence rate of asynchronous delivery was 0.14 per 1,000 births. The etiology of preterm birth of the first fetus in 12 (86%) of 14 cases was second-trimester rupture of membranes. The mean gestational age for delivery of the first fetus was 21.± 2.0 weeks. All women received tocolysis and intravenous antibiotics. Two of 3 attempts at cerclage placement were successful. Median latency obtained was 2 days (range less than 170 days). There was 1 survival of a first born. There were 19 retained fetuses, 2 died in utero, 10 died between birth and day 57 of life, and 7 survived (37%; 95% confidence interval 16%, 62%) until hospital discharge. Six of 7 survivors had major sequelae from prematurity. One of 19 fetuses was discharged without major sequelae (5%; 95% confidence interval 0%, 25%). Maternal morbidity included 2 placental abruptions and 8 cases of infectious morbidity including 1 case of septic shock.
CONCLUSION: Attempts at asynchronous deliveries are uncommon and are associated with a high rate of perinatal death. Most fetal survivors have significant damage from preterm birth.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Perinatal survival for retained fetuses (7 [37%] of 19) in this trial is less than that reported by Kalchbrenner et al1 who report 7 (78%) 9 survivors, Porreco et al2 who reported 9 (82%) of 11 survivors, and Hamersley et al3 who reported 5 of 6 survivors. There are several reasons for this discrepancy. First, Porreco et al2 included attempts at delayed delivery in the third trimester. Our series included only second-trimester deliveries. Second, a standard approach including amniocentesis (except Hamersly et al3), antibiotics, tocolysis, and cervical cerclage was used in the above series.1,2 Although there was no standard approach in our series, all women received intravenous antibiotics and tocolytics while cervical cerclage was utilized less frequently. Lavery et al4 reviewed the literature regarding the use of cervical cerclage in asynchronous deliveries and concluded that cerclage placement increases latency compared with those managed without cerclage.
Our poor fetal survival data are consistent with that of Van Doorn et al5 who reported 15 cases of attempted delayed delivery in women with gestational ages between 18 and 30 weeks. Survival was related to gestational age at delivery of first fetus. There was 1 neonatal survivor in 8 cases in which the gestational age at delivery of the first fetus was less than 25 weeks. In an extended report of the series by Porreco et al,2 Farkouh et al6 reported 20 cases of second-trimester delayed-interval delivery using the same standardized protocol as in the original series. Eight (44%) of 18 retained fetuses at a first-birth gestational age of less than 24 weeks survived. There were no cases of occult intra-amniotic infection discovered by amniocentesis. Neonatal morbidity was not reported.
In our series, perinatal outcome was dismal. Nearly all survivors developed significant morbidities often associated with long-term disabilities, such as grade 3 and intravenously intraventricular hemorrhage, stage III retinopathy of prematurity, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. The literature contains a paucity of data regarding long-term follow-up on children born after delayed-interval delivery. Frauke et al7 report long-term (11 months-6 years) outcomes of retained fetuses. Significant psychomotor delay was present in 2 of 5 infants.
Maternal morbidity in our series included high rates of cesarean delivery, puerperal infection, and placental abruption. Infectious morbidity occurred in the majority of patients. With one exception, treatment with intravenous antibiotics was limited to a few days. One woman survived life-threatening sepsis.
Interpretation of our data has several limitations. Because asynchronous delivery is a rare event, the absolute number of cases reported is small. As cases were collected over a 12-year period of time, improvements in perinatal care may have an impact on outcomes in current pregnancies.
Women who are candidates for attempted asynchronous delivery should be informed of the high rate of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Attempts at delayed interval delivery are usually not successful at prolonging pregnancy for more than a few days. However, delayed delivery often results in an infant with severe morbidities instead of an infant born at a previable gestational age who would die soon after delivery. Counseling should include maternal risks of prolonged hospitalization as well as high rates of cesarean delivery, placental abruption, and puerperal infection. When associated with asynchronous delivery, puerperal infection is usually, but not always, easily treated with a few days of intravenous antibiotics.
| Footnotes |
|---|
Received July 17, 2003. Received in revised form September 15, 2003. Accepted September 18, 2003.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
2. Porreco RP, Sabin ES, Heyborne KD, Lindsay LG. Delayed-interval delivery in multifetal pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:2023.[Medline]
3. Hamersley SK, Coleman SK, Bergauer NK, Bartholomew LM, Pinckeret TL. Delayed-interval delivery in twin pregnancies. J Reprod Med 2002;47:12530.[Medline]
4. Lavery JP, Austin RJ, Schaefer DS, Aladjem S. Asynchronous multiple birth: a report of five cases. J Reprod Med 1994;39:557.[Medline]
5. Van Doorn HC, van Wezel-Meijler G, van Geijn HP, Dekker GA. Delayed interval delivery in multiple pregnancies: is optimism justified? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999;78:71015.[Medline]
6. Farouth LJ, Sabin ED, Hayborne KD, Lindsay LG, Porreco RP. Delayed-interval delivery: extended series from a single maternal-fetal medicine practice. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:1499503.[Medline]
7. Frauke MA, Van der Straeten, De Ketelaere K, Temmerman M. Delayed interval delivery in multiple pregnancies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001;99:859.[Medline]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |