Dichorionic twin-specific vs singleton growth references for diagnosis of fetal growth restriction.

Background Fetal growth restriction is associated with an increased risk for adverse neonatal outcomes. The Hadlock singleton growth reference is widely used to determine the estimated fetal weight percentile for both twin and singleton gestations. The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s twin-specific growth reference accounts for the different growth trajectory that twins follow during gestation. There is a lack of research comparing these different growth references in their ability to identify fetal growth restriction that is associated with adverse neonatal outcomes in dichorionic twin gestations. Objective This study aimed to compare a twin-specific growth reference (the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s twin-specific growth reference) and a singleton growth reference (Hadlock) in their ability to identify fetal growth restriction associated with adverse neonatal outcomes in dichorionic twin gestations. Study Design This was a retrospective cohort study of dichorionic twin gestations at ≥32 weeks’ gestation delivered at a single institution between 2004 and 2019 with the serial growth ultrasounds and neonatal outcomes data available for analysis. Using their last growth ultrasound before delivery, twins were classified into the following 3 categories: fetal growth restriction according to both the Hadlock and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development references, fetal growth restriction according to the Hadlock reference only, and no fetal growth restriction according to either reference, with fetal growth restriction defined as an estimated fetal weight of Results A total of 1460 dichorionic twin infants were included with 8.1% (n=118) of cases classified as fetal growth restricted by both the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and Hadlock references, 8.8% (n=129) of cases classified as fetal growth restricted by the Hadlock reference only, and 83.1% (n=1213) of cases classified as no fetal growth restriction by either reference. Compared with twins with no fetal growth restriction by either reference, twins with fetal growth restriction by both references were more likely to experience mild (adjusted odds ratio, 2.38; confidence interval, 1.38–4.13) or severe (adjusted odds ratio, 2.82; confidence interval, 1.16–6.88) composite neonatal morbidity. Compared with twins with fetal growth restriction according to the Hadlock reference only, twins with fetal growth restriction according to both references were more likely to experience mild (adjusted odds ratio, 2.03; confidence interval, 1.00–4.14) but not severe (adjusted odds ratio, 3.70; confidence interval, 0.72–18.90) composite neonatal morbidity. Composite neonatal morbidity was not different between twins with fetal growth restriction according to the Hadlock reference only and those with no fetal growth restriction by either growth reference. Conclusion The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s twin-specific growth reference better identifies the risk for adverse neonatal outcomes in dichorionic twin gestations diagnosed with fetal growth restriction. The use of the Hadlock singleton growth reference more than doubles the number of dichorionic twins identified with fetal growth restriction who seem to be at a low-risk for neonatal morbidity, leading to unnecessary maternal anxiety, increased antenatal testing, and possibly iatrogenic preterm delivery.