Fetal heart rate changes associated with sequential selective laser surgery for twin-twin transfusion syndrome

Randomized controlled trial of twin-twin transfusion syndrome laser surgery: the sequential trial

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative blood transfer between twins during laser surgery for twin-twin transfusion syndrome can vary by surgical technique and has been proposed to explain differences in donor twin survival.

OBJECTIVE

This trial compared donor twin survival with 2 laser techniques: the sequential technique, in which the arteriovenous communications from the volume-depleted donor to the volume-overloaded recipient are laser-occluded before those from recipient to donor, and the selective technique, in which the occlusion of the vascular communications is performed in no particular order.

STUDY DESIGN

A single-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted in which twin-twin transfusion syndrome patients were randomized to sequential vs selective laser surgery. Nested within the trial, a second trial randomized patients with superficial anastomoses (arterioarterial and venovenous) to ablation of these connections first (before ablating the arteriovenous anastomoses) vs last. The primary outcome measure was donor twin survival at birth.

RESULTS

A total of 642 patients were randomized. Overall donor twin survival was similar between the 2 groups (274 of 320 [85.6%] vs 271 of 322 [84.2%]; odds ratio, 1.12 [95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.73]; P=.605). Superficial anastomoses occurred in 177 of 642 cases (27.6%). Donor survival was lower in the superficial anastomosis group vs those with only arteriovenous communications (125 of 177 [70.6%] vs 420 of 465 [90.3%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.33 [95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.54]; P<.001). In cases with superficial anastomoses, donor survival was independent of the timing of ablation or surgical technique. The postoperative mean middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity was lower in the sequential vs selective group (1.00±0.30 vs 1.06±0.30 multiples of the median; P=.003). Post hoc analyses showed 2 factors that were associated with poor overall donor twin survival: the presence or absence of donor twin preoperative critical abnormal Doppler parameters and the presence or absence of arterioarterial anastomoses. Depending on these factors, 4 categories of patients resulted: (1) Category 1 (347 of 642 [54%]), no donor twin critical abnormal Doppler + no arterioarterial anastomoses: donor twin survival was 91.2% in the sequential and 93.8% in the selective groups; (2) Category 2 (143 of 642 [22%]), critical abnormal Doppler present + no arterioarterial anastomoses: donor survival was 89.9% vs 75.7%; (3) Category 3 (73 of 642 [11%]), no critical abnormal Doppler + arterioarterial anastomoses present: donor survival was 94.7% vs 74.3%; and (4) Category 4 (79 of 642 [12%]), critical abnormal Doppler present + arterioarterial anastomoses present: donor survival was 47.6% vs 64.9%.

CONCLUSION

Donor twin survival did not differ between the sequential vs selective laser techniques and did not differ if superficial anastomoses were ablated first vs last. The donor twin's postoperative middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity was improved with the sequential vs the selective approach. Post hoc analyses suggest that donor twin survival may be associated with the choice of laser technique according to high-risk factors. Further study is needed to determine whether using these categories to guide the choice of surgical technique will improve outcomes.

Understanding Sociodemographic Disparities in Maternal-Fetal Surgery Study Participation

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Although maternal-fetal surgery to treat fetal anomalies such as spina bifida continues to grow more common, potential health disparities in the field remain relatively unexamined. To address this gap, we identified maternal-fetal surgery studies with the highest level of evidence and analyzed the reporting of participant sociodemographic characteristics and representation of racial and ethnic groups.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature using biomedical databases. We selected randomized control trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with comparison groups published in English from 1990 to May 5, 2020. We included studies from across the globe that examined the efficacy of fetal surgery for twin-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS), obstructive uropathy, congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH), myelomeningocele (MMC), thoracic lesions, cardiac malformations, or sacrococcygeal teratoma. We determined the frequency of reporting of age, gravidity/parity, race, ethnicity, education level, language spoken, insurance, income level, and relationship status. We identified whether sociodemographic factors were used as inclusion or exclusion criteria. We calculated the racial and ethnic group representation for studies in the USA using the participation-to-prevalence ratio (PPR).

RESULTS

We included 112 studies (10 RCTs, 102 cohort) published from 1990-1999 (8%), 2000-2009 (30%), and 2010-2020 (62%). Most studies were conducted in the USA (47%) or Europe (38%). The median sample size was 58. TTTS was the most common disease group (37% of studies), followed by MMC (23%), and CDH (21%). The most frequently reported sociodemographic variables were maternal age (33%) and gravidity/parity (20%). Race and/or ethnicity was only reported in 12% of studies. Less than 10% of studies reported any other sociodemographic variables. Sociodemographic variables were used as exclusion criteria in 13% of studies. Among studies conducted in the USA, White persons were consistently overrepresented relative to their prevalence in the US disease populations (PPR 1.32-2.11), while Black or African-American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian, American-Indian or Alaska-Native, and Native-Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander persons were consistently underrepresented (PPR 0-0.60).

CONCLUSIONS

Sociodemographic reporting quality in maternal-fetal surgery studies is poor and inhibits examination of potential health disparities. Participants enrolled in studies in the USA do not adequately represent the racial and ethnic diversity of the population across disease groups.