Premium
Percent absent end‐diastolic velocity in the umbilical artery waveform as a predictor of intrauterine fetal demise of the donor twin after selective laser photocoagulation of communicating vessels in twin–twin transfusion syndrome
Author(s) -
Kontopoulos E. V.,
Quintero R. A.,
Chmait R. H.,
Bornick P. W.,
Russell Z.,
Allen M. H.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.202
H-Index - 141
eISSN - 1469-0705
pISSN - 0960-7692
DOI - 10.1002/uog.4055
Subject(s) - medicine , umbilical artery , fetus , diastole , cardiology , ductus venosus , surgery , twin twin transfusion syndrome , monochorionic twins , obstetrics , blood pressure , pregnancy , genetics , biology
Objective Absent end‐diastolic velocity (AEDV) in the umbilical artery of the donor twin is a known risk factor for intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD) of this fetus after selective laser photocoagulation of communicating vessels (SLPCV) for twin–twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS). The aim of this study was to assess the proportion of time, expressed as a percentage, of the cardiac cycle spent in AEDV (%AEDV) as a predictor of IUFD of the donor. Methods All patients referred for possible SLPCV underwent complete preoperative staging evaluation including Doppler assessment of the umbilical artery. %AEDV was calculated retrospectively as 100 × (time of the cycle spent in AEDV divided by duration of total cardiac cycle). Patients without AEDV were considered to have a %AEDV of 0. Follow‐up Doppler studies were performed 16–24 h after SLPCV. IUFD of the donor was recorded if the donor twin died any time prior to delivery. Results Of 401 patients undergoing SLPCV, 127 had AEDV. Preoperative AEDV of the donor twin was associated with an increased risk of IUFD of the donor (40.9% vs. 14.2%, P < 0.0001). %AEDV was measured in 72/127 (56.7%) donors with AEDV for whom digital images were available. Within these 72 patients, the mean %AEDV was significantly higher in patients with IUFD of the donor (36.5% vs. 29.6%, P = 0.01). IUFD of the donor was similar in patients with AEDV, regardless of whether %AEDV was measured (36% vs. 47%, P = 0.2). A %AEDV > 30 was associated with a 4.3‐fold increase in the risk of IUFD of the donor (95% CI, 1.4–12.7), a sensitivity of 77% and a negative predictive value of 81.3%. Logistic regression showed that %AEDV, but not number of anastomoses, placental location, presence of artery‐to‐artery anastomoses or the presence or absence of EDV was associated significantly with IUFD of the donor. Conclusion %AEDV is a novel Doppler parameter in the assessment of patients with TTTS. %AEDV, rather than AEDV alone, is a significant risk factor for IUFD of the donor twin and %AEDV > 30 is associated with an increased risk of IUFD of the donor in TTTS patients treated with SLPCV. Assessment of %AEDV should be considered part of the preoperative evaluation of TTTS patients. Copyright © 2007 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.