Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy

Meislin R. · Stone J. · Lookstein R. · Stoffels G. · Rebarber A. · Fox N.S. · Vieira L.

Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.

Buy FullText & PDF Unlimited re-access via MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.

Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.

Learn more

Rent via DeepDyve Unlimited fulltext viewing of this article Organize, annotate and mark up articles Printing and downloading restrictions apply

Start free trial

Subscribe Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

Subcription rates

Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details Abstract

Introduction Higher-order fetal gestation is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, and monochorionic (MC) pregnancies have unique complications. Multifetal pregnancy reduction (MPR) by radiofrequency ablation may be used to optimize the outcomes of a single fetus. The purpose of this study was to determine whether pregnancy outcomes differ for elective reduction compared to reduction for medically-complicated MC multifetal pregnancies. Methods This was a retrospective cohort of patients with MC twins and higher-order multiples who underwent MPR via radiofrequency ablation at a single institution between 2008-2021. Patients undergoing elective reduction were compared to patients undergoing reduction due to a complication of monochorionic pregnancy. Pregnancy outcomes were evaluated. Results Forty-eight patients who underwent RFA reduction between 2008-2021 were included in the analysis. Sixteen patients (33.3%) underwent elective RFA for MPR, and 32 (66.7%) underwent an RFA procedure for a complicated pregnancy. All pregnancies with RFA performed for elective indication had a continuing pregnancy (live birth rate 100%). There were no reported pregnancy losses within four weeks of the procedure when performed for a solely elective indication (n=0) compared to 6.3% of complicated twin pregnancy n=2 (6.3%) (p=0.001). Conclusion In this retrospective cohort study, elective reduction of MC twins using RFA was associated with no cases of fetal loss or PPROM within four weeks of the procedure, and a 100% live birth rate.

S. Karger AG, Basel

Article / Publication Details Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.