Trends in Caesarean section rates for twin pregnancies: a 20-year cohort study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12809/hkjgom.19.2.03Keywords:
Caesarean section, Delivery, obstetric, Pregnancy, twinsAbstract
Objective: To evaluate trends in Caesarean section (CS) rates for twin pregnancies over 20 years in a regional obstetric unit in Hong Kong.
Methods: Data on twin deliveries between 1998 and 2017 at United Christian Hospital were collected. CS rates were calculated for each calendar year, and data were stratified into four 5-year intervals to determine trends. Twins delivered vaginally or by CS were compared in terms of maternal epidemiological risk factors, pregnancy characteristics, and pregnancy outcome. A logistic regression model was used to determine significant risk factors associated with CS.
Results: From 1998 to 2017, 1083 (1.24%) of 87 480 deliveries were twin deliveries. The total CS rate for twins progressively increased from 58.9% in 1998-2002 to 84.1% in 2013-2017, particularly the CS rate for cephalic + cephalic twins from 41.7% in 1998-2002 to 74.7% in 2013-2017. The CS rate for non-cephalic first twin was close to 100% for all intervals. Logistic regression analysis showed that CS was positively associated with noncephalic presentation of the first twin (odds ratio [OR]=13.1), previous CS (OR=4.19), and advanced maternal age (OR=1.7) and negatively associated with preterm delivery (OR=0.34), multiparity (OR=0.29), and induction of labour (OR=0.086). For perinatal outcome, CS was significantly associated with higher mean birthweight, lower incidence of adverse perinatal or neonatal outcome but higher risks of postpartum haemorrhage.
Conclusion: A progressive increase in CS rates for twins was observed over the past 20 years, particularly among cephalic-presenting twins, despite the lack of clear evidence on the preferred mode of delivery for such twin pregnancies.
References
Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK, Drake P. Births: final data for 2016. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2018;67:1-55.
Fell DB, Joseph K. Temporal trends in the frequency of twins and higher-order multiple births in Canada and the United States. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2012;12:103.
Australia’s mothers and babies 2016: in brief. Available from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/7a8ad47e-8817-46d3-9757-44fe975969c4/aihw-per-97.pdf.aspx?inline=true. Accessed 27 May 2019.
Smith GC, Shah I, White IR, Pell JP, Dobbie R. Mode of delivery and the risk of delivery-related perinatal death among twins at term: a retrospective cohort study of 8073 births. BJOG 2005;112:1139-44.
Barrett JF, Hannah ME, Hutton EK, et al. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1295-305.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Obstetric care consensus no. 1: safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:693-711.
Lee HC, Gould JB, Boscardin WJ, El-Sayed YY, Blumenfeld YJ. Trends in cesarean delivery for twin births in the United States: 1995-2008. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:1095-101.
Chung WH, Kong CW, To WW. Secular trends in caesarean section rates over 20 years in a regional obstetric unit in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J 2017;23:340-8.
Bateni ZH, Clark SL, Sangi-Haghpeykar H, et al. Trends in the delivery route of twin pregnancies in the United States, 2006-2013. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;205:120-6.
Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 2000;356:1375-83.
Steins Bisschop CN, Vogelvang TE, May AM, Schuitemaker NW. Mode of delivery in non-cephalic presenting twins: a systematic review. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;286:237-47.
Bogner G, Wallner V, Fazelnia C, et al. Delivery of the second twin: influence of presentation on neonatal outcome, a case controlled study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018;18:176.
Schmitz T, Korb D, Battie C, et al. Neonatal morbidity associated with vaginal delivery of noncephalic second twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;218:449.e1-449.e13.
Suzuki S. Risk factors for emergency cesarean delivery of the second twin after vaginal delivery of the first twin. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2009;35:467-71.
Wolff K. Excessive use of cesarean section for the second twin? Gynecol Obstet Invest 2000;50:28-32.
Jonsdottir F, Henriksen L, Secher NJ, Maaløe N. Does internal podalic version of the non-vertex second twin still have a place in obstetrics? A Danish national retrospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015;94:59-64.
Rossi AC, Mullin PM, Chmait RH. Neonatal outcomes of twins according to birth order, presentation and mode of delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2011;118:523-32.
Bjelic-Radisic V, Pristauz G, Haas J, et al. Neonatal outcome of second twins depending on presentation and mode of delivery. Twin Res Hum Genet 2007;10:521-7.
Easter SR, Lieberman E, Carusi D. Fetal presentation and successful twin vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;214:116.e1-116.e10.
Houlihan C, Knuppel RA. Intrapartum management of multiple gestations. Clin Perinatol 1996;23:91-116.
Hoffmann E, Oldenburg A, Rode L, Tabor A, Rasmussen S, Skibsted L. Twin births: cesarean section or vaginal delivery? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012;91:463-9.
Dong Y, Luo ZC, Yang ZJ, et al. Is cesarean delivery preferable in twin pregnancies at >=36 weeks gestation? PLoS One 2016;11:e0155692.
Sato Y, Emoto I, Maruyama S, Taga A, Fujii T. Twin vaginal delivery is associated with lower umbilical arterial blood pH of the second twin and less intrapartum blood loss. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016;29:3067-71.
Schmitz T, Prunet C, Azria E, et al. Association between planned cesarean delivery and neonatal mortality and morbidity in twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2017;129:986-95.
Goossens SMTA, Ensing S, van der Hoeven MAHBM, Roumen FJME, Nijhuis JG, Mol BW. Comparison of planned caesarean delivery and planned vaginal delivery in women with a twin pregnancy: a nation wide cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018;221:97-104.
Hofmeyr GJ, Barrett JF, Crowther CA. Planned caesarean section for women with a twin pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;12:CD006553.
Rabinovici J, Barkai G, Reichman B, Serr DM, Mashiach S. Randomized management of the second nonvertex twin: vaginal delivery or cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;156:52-6.
Fox NS, Cohen N, Odom E, et al. Long-term outcomes of twins based on the intended mode of delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018;31:2164-9.
Ylilehto E, Palomäki O, Huhtala H, Uotila J. Term twin birth - impact of mode of delivery on outcome. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2017;96:589-96.
Easter SR, Robinson JN, Lieberman E, Carusi D. Association of intended route of delivery and maternal morbidity in twin pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2017;129:305-10.
Hutton EK, Hannah ME, Ross S, et al. Maternal outcomes at 3 months after planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for twin pregnancies in the Twin Birth Study: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2015;122:1653-62.
Korb D, Deneux-Tharaux C, Seco A, et al. Risk of severe acute maternal morbidity according to planned mode of delivery in twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2018;132:647-55.
Bayrampour H, Heaman M. Advanced maternal age and the risk of cesarean birth: a systematic review. Birth 2010;37:219-26.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Hong Kong Journal of Gynaecology, Obstetrics and Midwifery
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Journal has a fully Open Access policy and publishes all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. For any use other than that permitted by this license, written permission must be obtained from the Journal.
