Mode of birth in twins: data and reflections.

Our primary objective was to compare neonatal and maternal outcomes in women with twin pregnancies, beyond 32 weeks, having a planned vaginal birth or a planned caesarean section (CS). This was a retrospective cohort study from a single tertiary centre over nine years. 534 sets of twins ≥32 + 0 weeks of gestation were included. 401 sets were planned vaginally and 133 sets were planned by CS. We compared a composite adverse perinatal outcome (perinatal mortality or serious neonatal morbidity; five minute APGAR score ≤4, neurological abnormality and need for intubation) and a composite maternal adverse outcome (major haemorrhage, trauma or infection) between the groups. There were no significant differences. Given the similarity of these results with several other larger studies of twin birth, we sought to look at reasons why there is still a rising rate of CS for twin births. We further make suggestions for keeping this rate to a sensible minimum. Impact statement What is already known on this subject? The largest randomised controlled study comparing planned vaginal birth with planned CSs for lower risk twins between 32 and 39 weeks of gestation, showed no added safety from planned CS. However, in most of the Western countries this conclusion has failed to increase the number of planned vaginal births for lower risk twins. What do the results of this study add? This observational study from a single tertiary centre provides external validation of the twin trial results in a practical day-to-day setting. It also provides insights as to how planned vaginal birth can be developed and maintained, with a key focus on safety and maternal participation in decision making. It does focus on consent and providing accurate data. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? There are good grounds to encourage vaginal birth for low-risk twin pregnancies. The trend of rising caesarean rates in low-risk twin pregnancies worldwide will erode important skills for the conduct of vaginal births without any clear benefit for mothers or babies. The current situation demands careful thought about implementing innovative training opportunities for younger obstetricians. Finally, we need intelligent responses to many non-evidence-based factors which can drive clinical practice.