open access

Vol 91, No 10 (2020)
Research paper
Published online: 2020-10-30
Get Citation

A randomized trial in comparison between planned cesarean and vaginal delivery on twin pregnancy

Yu Tong, Qiang Sun, Xiaoguang Shao, Feng Han
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2020.0094
·
Pubmed: 33184828
·
Ginekol Pol 2020;91(10):600-606.

open access

Vol 91, No 10 (2020)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Obstetrics
Published online: 2020-10-30

Abstract

Objective: We explored the planned cesarean to vaginal delivery at the risk of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal
morbidity in women with twin pregnancies.
Material and methods: Three hundred and forty-three pregnant women were divided into planned cesarean delivery
(PCD) and vaginal delivery (PVD) groups (208 vs 135). In the planned-cesarean-delivery group, the rate of cesarean delivery
was 98.82%. Meanwhile, the rate of vaginal delivery was 51.27% in PVD group.
Results: Women in the PCD group delivered earlier than that in the PVD group. However, the composite primary outcome
of the PCD group was like that of the PVD group. Certainly, the odds ratio of planned cesarean delivery and confidence
interval of the PCD group was also like those of the PVD group.
Conclusions: The risk of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity of planned-vaginal-delivery was like those
of planned-vaginal-delivery in pregnant women with twin pregnancies.

Abstract

Objective: We explored the planned cesarean to vaginal delivery at the risk of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal
morbidity in women with twin pregnancies.
Material and methods: Three hundred and forty-three pregnant women were divided into planned cesarean delivery
(PCD) and vaginal delivery (PVD) groups (208 vs 135). In the planned-cesarean-delivery group, the rate of cesarean delivery
was 98.82%. Meanwhile, the rate of vaginal delivery was 51.27% in PVD group.
Results: Women in the PCD group delivered earlier than that in the PVD group. However, the composite primary outcome
of the PCD group was like that of the PVD group. Certainly, the odds ratio of planned cesarean delivery and confidence
interval of the PCD group was also like those of the PVD group.
Conclusions: The risk of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity of planned-vaginal-delivery was like those
of planned-vaginal-delivery in pregnant women with twin pregnancies.

Get Citation

Keywords

planned cesarean; vaginal delivery; twin pregnancy

About this article
Title

A randomized trial in comparison between planned cesarean and vaginal delivery on twin pregnancy

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 91, No 10 (2020)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

600-606

Published online

2020-10-30

DOI

10.5603/GP.a2020.0094

Pubmed

33184828

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2020;91(10):600-606.

Keywords

planned cesarean
vaginal delivery
twin pregnancy

Authors

Yu Tong
Qiang Sun
Xiaoguang Shao
Feng Han

References (25)
  1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, et al. Births: final data for 2016. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2018; 67: 1–52.
  2. Aviram A, Lipworth H, Asztalos EV, et al. The worst of both worlds-combined deliveries in twin gestations: a subanalysis of the Twin Birth Study, a randomized, controlled, prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 221(4): 353.e1–353.e7.
  3. Hehir MP, Ananth CV, Siddiq Z, et al. Cesarean delivery in the United States 2005e2014: a populationbased analysis using the Robson Ten-Group Classification System. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 2018; 219: 105.e1–111.e1.
  4. Robson SJ, de Costa C, Woods C, et al. Maternal-choice caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth in low-risk primigravid women. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018; 58(4): 469–473.
  5. Loscul C, Schmitz T, Blanc-Petitjean P, et al. JUMODA and MEDIP study groups. Risk of cesarean after induction of labor in twin compared to singleton pregnancies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019; 237: 68–73.
  6. Khalil A, Giallongo E, Bhide A, et al. Reduction in twin stillbirth following implementation of NICE guidance. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 [Epub ahead of print].
  7. Sundram V, Chauhan SC, Ebeling M, et al. Curcumin attenuates β-catenin signaling in prostate cancer cells through activation of protein kinase D1. PLoS One. 2012; 7(4): e35368.
  8. Yun SM, Jung JiH, Jeong SJ, et al. Tanshinone IIA induces autophagic cell death via activation of AMPK and ERK and inhibition of mTOR and p70 S6K in KBM-5 leukemia cells. Phytother Res. 2014; 28(3): 458–464.
  9. Shan XL, Zhou XY, Yang J, et al. [Inhibitory effect of cucurbitacin E on the proliferation of ovarian cancer cells and its mechanism]. Chin J Cancer. 2010; 29(1): 20–24.
  10. Wang Z, Li Y, Banerjee S, et al. Down-regulation of Notch-1 and Jagged-1 inhibits prostate cancer cell growth, migration and invasion, and induces apoptosis via inactivation of Akt, mTOR, and NF-kappaB signaling pathways. J Cell Biochem. 2010; 109(4): 726–736.
  11. Lan T, Wang L, Xu Q, et al. Growth inhibitory effect of Cucurbitacin E on breast cancer cells. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2013; 6(9): 1799–1805.
  12. Li CM, Narayanan R, Lu Y, et al. 2-Arylthiazolidine-4-carboxylic acid amides (ATCAA) target dual pathways in cancer cells: 5'-AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK)/mTOR and PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathways. Int J Oncol. 2010; 37(4): 1023–1030.
  13. Zha QB, Zhang XY, Lin QR, et al. Cucurbitacin E Induces Autophagy via Downregulating mTORC1 Signaling and Upregulating AMPK Activity. PLoS One. 2015; 10(5): e0124355.
  14. Duncan KL, Duncan MD, Alley MC, et al. Cucurbitacin E-induced disruption of the actin and vimentin cytoskeleton in prostate carcinoma cells. Biochem Pharmacol. 1996; 52(10): 1553–1560.
  15. Asztalos EV, Hannah ME, Hutton EK, et al. Twin Birth Study Collaborative Group, Twin Birth Study Collaborative Group. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369(14): 1295–1305.
  16. Keane M, Smith GCS, White IR, et al. Planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370(3): 280–280.
  17. Goossens SM, Mol BWJ, Nijhuis JG. Vaginal delivery safe for twins starting at 32 weeks? . Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2014(158): A7226.
  18. Sun C, Zhang M, Shan X, et al. Inhibitory effect of cucurbitacin E on pancreatic cancer cells growth via STAT3 signaling. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2010; 136(4): 603–610.
  19. Kawakami J, Cowan JE, Elkin EP, et al. CaPSURE Investigators. Androgen-deprivation therapy as primary treatment for localized prostate cancer: data from Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE). Cancer. 2006; 106(8): 1708–1714.
  20. Zhu B, Fukada K, Zhu H, et al. Prohibitin and cofilin are intracellular effectors of transforming growth factor beta signaling in human prostate cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2006; 66(17): 8640–8647.
  21. Huang WW, Yang JS, Lin MW, et al. Cucurbitacin E Induces G(2)/M Phase Arrest through STAT3/p53/p21 Signaling and Provokes Apoptosis via Fas/CD95 and Mitochondria-Dependent Pathways in Human Bladder Cancer T24 Cells. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2012; 2012: 952762.
  22. Brown RE, Zotalis G, Zhang PL, et al. Morphoproteomic confirmation of a constitutively activated mTOR pathway in high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and prostate cancer. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2008; 1(4): 333–342.
  23. Deeb D, Gao X, Jiang H, et al. CDDO-me induces apoptosis and inhibits Akt, mTOR and NF-kappaB signaling proteins in prostate cancer cells. Anticancer Res. 2007; 27(5A): 3035–3044.
  24. Nakashima S, Matsuda H, Kurume Ai, et al. Cucurbitacin E as a new inhibitor of cofilin phosphorylation in human leukemia U937 cells. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2010; 20(9): 2994–2997.
  25. Kong Y, Chen J, Zhou Z, et al. Cucurbitacin E induces cell cycle G2/M phase arrest and apoptosis in triple negative breast cancer. PLoS One. 2014; 9(7): e103760.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl