Ductus Venosus Agenesis in Monochorionic Twin Pregnancies Complicated by Fetal Growth Restriction: When to Deliver?

• Published in: Diagnostics (Basel) 2024-09, Vol.14 (19), p.2147
• Main Authors: Torcia, Eleonora, Familiari, Alessandra, Passananti, Elvira, di Marco, Giulia, Romanzi, Federica, Trapani, Mariarita, Visconti, Daniela, Lanzone, Antonio, Bevilacqua, Elisa
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Case Report; Cesarean section; Drainage; ductus venosus agenesis; fetal medicine; Fetus; Fetuses; Growth; high-risk pregnancy; Medical history; Medical research; Medicine, Experimental; multiple pregnancy; Placenta; Pregnancy; Pregnant women; prenatal diagnosis; Stillbirth; Surveillance; Twins; Ultrasonic imaging; ultrasound; Umbilical cord; White people
• ISSN: 2075-4418; 2075-4418
• DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14192147

The prevalence of ductus venosus agenesis (ADV) in singleton pregnancies ranges from 0.04% to 0.15%, while its prevalence in twins remains largely unknown. To our knowledge, in the literature, there is only a single case report of a monochorionic diamniotic (MCDA) pregnancy complicated by ADV. Fetuses with ADV are at increased risk for congenital cardiac disease, heart failure, and fetal growth restriction (FGR). Consequently, these pregnancies have a heightened risk of experiencing an adverse outcome, like stillbirth and neonatal or infant death. Closer antenatal monitoring is warranted when ADV is suspected. Currently, there are no guidelines regarding the standard of care in cases of ADV and no recommendations for the timing of delivery in either singleton or twin pregnancies. This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the management of twin pregnancies complicated by ADV, featuring two cases of MC twins with concurrent sFGR and ADV in one twin. These pregnancies experienced completely different outcomes, underscoring the necessity for personalized management tailored to the specific risk factors present in each pregnancy. Typically, in MCDA pregnancies with severe sFGR (type II and III), delivery represents the most reasonable option when venous Doppler abnormalities are identified. However, the absence of the DV complicates the management and the process of decision-making regarding the timing of delivery in cases of sFGR and ADV. We emphasize that effective decision-making should be guided by the presence of additional risk factors, including velamentous insertion, significant estimated fetal weight discordance, and progressive deterioration of the Doppler over time. Our experience suggests that these factors are strongly correlated with poorer outcomes. Given this context, could it be acceptable, in the case of MC pregnancy complicated by severe sFGR and ADV, with worsening findings and additional risk factors (e.g., velamentous insertion, severe birth weight discrepancy), to anticipate the time of delivery starting from 30 weeks of gestational age?