Induction of Labor in Twins—Double Trouble?
Authors: Lopian Miriam , Kashani-Ligumsky Lior , Cohen Ronnie , Wiener Izaak , Amir Bat-Chen , Gold Zamir Yael , Many Ariel , Rosen Hadar 
Published: March 2023

Objective: To determine and compare the safety and efficacy of different methods of induction of labor in twin gestations and their effect on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Methods: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted at a single university-affiliated medical center. Patients with a twin gestation undergoing induction of labor at >32 + 0 weeks comprised the study group. Outcomes were compared to patients with a twin gestation at >32 + 0 weeks who went into labor spontaneously. The primary outcome was cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes included operative vaginal delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, uterine rupture, 5 min APGAR < 7, and umbilical artery pH < 7.1. A subgroup analysis comparing outcomes for the induction of labor with oral prostaglandin E1 (PGE1), IV Oxytocin ± artificial rupture of membranes (AROM), and extra-amniotic balloon (EAB)+ IV Oxytocin was performed. Data were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test, ANOVA, and chi-square tests. Results: 268 patients who underwent induction of labor with a twin gestation comprised the study group. 450 patients with a twin gestation who went into labor spontaneously comprised the control group. There were no clinically significant differences between the groups for maternal age, gestational age, neonatal birthweight, birthweight discordancy, and non-vertex second twin. There were significantly more nulliparas in the study group compared to the control group (23.9% vs. 13.8% p < 0.001). The study group was significantly more likely to undergo a cesarean delivery of at least one twin (12.3% vs. 7.5% OR, 1.7 95% CI 1.04–2.85 p = 0.03). However, there was no significant difference in the rate of operative vaginal delivery (15.3% vs. 19.6% OR, 0.74, 95% CI 0.5–1.1 p = 0.16), PPH (5.2% vs. 6.9% OR, 0.75 95% CI 0.39–1.42 p = 0.37), 5-min APGAR scores < 7 (0% vs. 0.2% OR, 0.99 95%CI 0.99–1.00 p = 0.27), umbilical artery pH < 7.1 (1.5% vs. 1.3% OR, 1.12 95% CI 0.3–4.0), or combined adverse outcome (7.8% vs. 8.7% OR, 0.93 95% CI 0.6–1.4 p = 0.85). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the rates of cesarean delivery or combined adverse outcomes in patients undergoing induction with oral PGE1 compared to IV Oxytocin ± AROM (13.3% vs. 12.5% OR, 1.1 95% CI 0.4–2.0 p = 1.0) (7% vs. 9.3% OR, 0.77 95% CI 0.5–3.5 p = 0.63 ) or EAB+ IV Oxytocin (13.3% vs. 6.9% OR, 2.1 95% CI 0.1–2.1 p = 0.53) (7% vs. 6.9% OR, 1.4 95% CI 0.15–3.5 p = 0.5) or between patients undergoing induction of labor with IV Oxytocin ± AROM and EAB+ IV Oxytocin (12.5% vs. 6.9% OR, 2.1 95% CI 0.1–2.4 p = 0.52) (9.3% vs. 6.9% OR, 0.98 95% CI 0.2–4.7 p = 0.54). There were no cases of uterine rupture in our study. Conclusions: Induction of labor in twin gestations is associated with a two-fold increased risk of cesarean delivery, although this is not associated with adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes. Furthermore, the method of induction of labor used does not affect the chances of success nor the rate of adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes.