Planned caesarean section for women with a twin pregnancy.

Show simple item record Hofmeyr, G Justus en Barrett, Jon F en Crowther, Caroline en 2018-10-24T22:18:51Z en 2015-12-19 en
dc.identifier.citation Cochrane database of systematic reviews CD006553 Jan 2015 en
dc.identifier.issn 1469-493X en
dc.identifier.uri en
dc.description.abstract BACKGROUND:Twin pregnancies are associated with increased perinatal mortality, mainly related to prematurity, but complications during birth may contribute to perinatal loss or morbidity. The option of planned caesarean section to avoid such complications must therefore be considered. On the other hand, randomised trials of other clinical interventions in the birth process to avoid problems related to labour and birth (planned caesarean section for breech, and continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring), have shown an unexpected discordance between short-term perinatal morbidity and long-term neurological outcome. The risks of caesarean section for the mother in the current and subsequent pregnancies must also be taken into account. OBJECTIVES:To determine the short- and long-term effects on mothers and their babies, of planned caesarean section for twin pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS:We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (18 November 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA:Randomised trials comparing a policy of caesarean section with planned vaginal birth for women with twin pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, quality and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. For important outcomes the quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS:We included two trials comparing planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for twin pregnancies.Most of the data included in the review were from a multicentre trial where 2804 women were randomised in 106 centres in 25 countries. All centres had facilities to perform emergency caesarean section and had anaesthetic, obstetrical, and nursing staff available in the hospital at the time of planned vaginal delivery. In the second trial carried out in Israel, 60 women were randomised. We judged the risk of bias to be low for all categories except performance (high) and outcome assessment bias (unclear).There was no clear evidence of differences between women randomised to planned caesarean section or planned vaginal birth for maternal death or serious morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.11; 2844 women; two studies; moderate quality evidence). There was no significant difference between groups for perinatal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.67; data for 5565 babies, one study, moderate quality evidence). No studies reported childhood disability.For secondary outcomes there was no clear evidence of differences between groups for perinatal or neonatal mortality (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.62; 5685 babies; two studies, moderate quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.64; 5644 babies; two studies, moderate quality evidence) or any of the other neonatal outcomes reported.The number of women undergoing caesarean section was reported in both trials. Most women in the planned caesarean group had treatment as planned (90.9% underwent caesarean section), whereas in the planned vaginal birth group 42.9% had caesarean section for at least one twin. For maternal mortality; no events were reported in one trial and two deaths (one in each group) in the other. There were no significant differences between groups for serious maternal morbidity overall (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.11; 2844 women; two studies) or for different types of short-term morbidity. There were no significant differences between groups for failure to breastfeed (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.38; 2570 women, one study; moderate quality evidence) or the number of women with scores greater than 12 on the Edinbugh postnatal depression scale (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 2570 women, one study; moderate quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Data mainly from one large, multicentre study found no clear evidence of benefit from planned caesarean section for term twin pregnancies with leading cephalic presentation. Data on long-term infant outcomes are awaited. Women should be informed of possible risks and benefits of labour and vaginal birth pertinent to their specific clinical presentation and the current and long-term effects of caesarean section for both mother and babies. There is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of planned caesarean section for term twin pregnancy with leading cephalic presentation, except in the context of further randomised trials. en
dc.format.medium Electronic en
dc.language eng en
dc.relation.ispartofseries The Cochrane database of systematic reviews en
dc.rights Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. en
dc.rights.uri en
dc.rights.uri en
dc.subject Humans en
dc.subject Pregnancy Outcome en
dc.subject Cesarean Section en
dc.subject Maternal Mortality en
dc.subject Pregnancy en
dc.subject Parturition en
dc.subject Infant, Newborn en
dc.subject Female en
dc.subject Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic en
dc.subject Perinatal Mortality en
dc.subject Pregnancy, Twin en
dc.subject Elective Surgical Procedures en
dc.title Planned caesarean section for women with a twin pregnancy. en
dc.type Journal Article en
dc.identifier.doi 10.1002/14651858.CD006553.pub3 en
pubs.issue 12 en
pubs.begin-page CD006553 en
dc.rights.holder Copyright: The authors en
dc.identifier.pmid 26684389 en
pubs.publication-status Published en
dc.rights.accessrights en
pubs.subtype Meta-Analysis en
pubs.subtype Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't en
pubs.subtype Systematic Review en
pubs.subtype systematic-review en
pubs.subtype Review en
pubs.subtype Journal Article en
pubs.elements-id 522757 en Liggins Institute en LiFePATH en
dc.identifier.eissn 1469-493X en
pubs.record-created-at-source-date 2015-12-20 en
pubs.dimensions-id 26684389 en

Files in this item

Find Full text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Search ResearchSpace