| Literature DB >> 32448339 |
Ettore Piro1, Ingrid Anne Mandy Schierz2, Gregorio Serra2, Giuseppe Puccio2, Mario Giuffrè2, Giovanni Corsello2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rate of twinning continues to increase due to the combined effect of a rise in parental age and increased use of assisted reproductive technology. The risk of congenital anomalies in twins is higher than in singletons, but it is less well reported in relation to growth patterns. We focused to the auxological outcome of twin pregnancies when one or both of twins are affected by one or more malformations.Entities:
Keywords: Birthweight discordance; Congenital abnormalities; Microcephaly; Multiple birth; Preterm infant; Retrospective study
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32448339 PMCID: PMC7247245 DOI: 10.1186/s13052-020-00838-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ital J Pediatr ISSN: 1720-8424 Impact factor: 2.638
Demographic and auxological characteristics of twin neonates
| Not malformed neonates | Malformed neonates | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Median | IQR | Mean | SD | Median | IQR | ||
| 94.3 | 5.7 | ||||||||
| 86.6 | 16.4 | ||||||||
| 1.0 | 1.5 | ||||||||
| 65.0 | 74.0 | ||||||||
| 35.3 | 2.9 | 36.1 | 2.9 | 34.5 | 3.1 | 35.7 | 4.9 | ||
| 2177.5 | 584.7 | 2270.0 | 697.5 | 1892.2 | 628.5 | 1915.0 | 855.0 | ||
| 30.5 | 24.8 | 24.0 | 36.0 | 27.0 | 26.0 | 17.5 | 35.0 | ||
| 31.5 | 54.3 | ||||||||
| 7.1 | 9.3 | ||||||||
| 275.4 | 247.1 | 200.0 | 270.0 | 311.3 | 281.4 | 210.0 | 210.0 | ||
| 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.10 | ||
| 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.09 | −0.05 | 0.11 | −0.05 | 0.09 | ||
| 44.5 | 4.2 | 45.2 | 4.0 | 42.8 | 4.5 | 43.0 | 5.0 | ||
| 34.5 | 27.4 | 29.0 | 44.0 | 31.3 | 27.4 | 27.0 | 43.8 | ||
| 1.4 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 2.8 | 1.0 | 3.0 | ||
| 31.5 | 2.8 | 32.0 | 2.5 | 30.5 | 3.1 | 31.0 | 4.6 | ||
| 41.1 | 27.4 | 36.0 | 40.4 | 40.4 | 30.3 | 35.5 | 50.8 | ||
| −0.27 | 0.97 | −0.35 | 1.18 | −0.44 | 1.24 | −0.38 | 1.43 | ||
| 0.69 | 1.30 | 0.50 | 1.40 | 0.82 | 1.79 | 0.70 | 1.50 | ||
| 2.4 | 0.3 | 2.4 | 0.3 | 2.3 | 0.3 | 2.3 | 0.4 | ||
| 0.08 | 0.29 | 0.05 | 0.37 | 0.10 | 0.30 | 0.13 | 0.33 | ||
| 10.8 | 1.6 | 11.0 | 1.8 | 10.0 | 1.8 | 9.9 | 2.8 | ||
| 0.70 | 1.09 | 0.54 | 1.37 | 0.87 | 1.10 | 0.76 | 1.33 | ||
| 0.03 | 1.14 | 0.02 | 0.70 | −0.25 | 0.65 | −0.31 | 0.87 | ||
Abbreviations: BMI body mass index, BW birthweight, FGR fetal growth restriction, GA gestational age, HC head circumference, PI ponderal index, SD standard deviation, SGA small for gestational age
Significant differences are in bold
Fig. 1Malformation metrics to intertwin birthweight difference mean ratio: Malformation class distribution are reported as box plots and are distributed equally lower than zero in all malformed twins, except for those with cardiovascular malformations (p = .0000083). Solid circles in the box plot graphs represent outliers with values that lies more than one and a half times the length of the box. BW, birthweight; CDH, congenital diaphragmatic hernia; CNS, central nervous system GI, gastrointestinal; Gu, genitourinary; MS, musculoskeletal malformation