Skip to main content

Perinatal outcomes in twin late preterm pregnancies: results from an Italian area-based, prospective cohort study



Multiple gestations represent a considerable proportion of pregnancies delivering in the late preterm (LP) period. Only 30% of LP twins are due to spontaneous preterm labor and 70% are medically indicated; among this literature described that 16–50% of indicated LP twin deliveries are non-evidence based. As non-evidence-based delivery indications account for iatrogenic morbidity that could be prevented, the objective of our observational study is to investigate first neonatal outcomes of LP twin pregnancies according to gestational age at delivery, chorionicity and delivery indication, then non evidence-based delivery indications.


Prospective cohort study among twins infants born between 34 + 0 and 36 + 6 weeks, in Emilia Romagna, Italy, during 2013–2015. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes.


Among 346 LP twins, 84 (23.4%) were monochorionic and 262 (75.7%) were dichorionic; spontaneous preterm labor accounted for 85 (24.6%) deliveries, preterm prelabor rupture of membranes for 66 (19.1%), evidence based indicated deliveries were 117 (33.8%), while non-evidence-based indications were 78 (22.5%).

When compared to spontaneous preterm labor or preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, pregnancies delivered due to maternal and/or fetal indications were associated with higher maternal age (p <  0.01), higher gestational age at delivery (p <  0.01), Caucasian race (p 0.04), ART use (p <  0.01), gestational diabetes (p <  0.01), vaginal bleeding (p <  0.01), antenatal corticosteroids (p <  0.01), diagnosis of fetal growth restriction (FGR) (p <  0.01), and monochorionic (p <  0.01). Two hundred twenty-six pregnancies (65.3%) had at least one fetus experiencing one composite of adverse perinatal outcome. Multivariate analysis confirmed that delivery indication did not affect the composite of adverse perinatal outcomes; the only characteristic that affect the outcome after controlling for confounding was gestational age at delivery (p <  0.01). Moreover, there was at least one adverse neonatal outcome for 94% of babies born at 34 weeks, for 73% of those born at 35 weeks and for 46% of those born at 36 weeks (p <  0.01).


Our study suggests that the decision to deliver or not twins in LP period should consider gestational age at delivery as the main determinant infants’ prognosis. Delivery indications should be accurately considered, to avoid iatrogenic early birth responsible of preventable complications.


Late preterm (LP) birth, defined as delivery between 34 and 0/7 and 36–6/7 weeks of gestation, accounts for about 70% of overall prematurity in Europe [1]. Compared to the term neonates, LP more commonly encounter adverse outcomes, such as higher respiratory morbidity [2,3,4], long-term adverse developmental and cognitive outcomes [5] and may also have repercussions on their health as adults [6, 7].

Multiple gestations represent a considerable proportion of pregnancies delivering in the LP period. Twin gestations account for approximately 3–4% of all live births [8, 9], with a LP rate of 49.8% [10], and a mean gestational age (GA) at delivery of 35.3 weeks [11]. When compared to singleton gestations, twin mothers have higher morbidity and mortality rates from gestational hypertension, cesarean delivery, and postpartum hemorrhage, while their newborns have higher NICU admission rates and neonatal sequelae [12]. Furthermore, after adjusting for gestational age at delivery, monochorionic twins (MC) experience higher rates of perinatal complications and stillbirth (SB) than dichorionic twins (DT) and singletons [13,14,15].

While 70% of all twin births are indicated, 30% are due to spontaneous preterm labor [16]. Despite guidelines indicating when to deliver twin gestations according to gestational age, chorionicity, and concomitant maternal or fetal complications [17], 16–50% of indicated LP twin deliveries are non-evidence based (EB) [17]. As non EB delivery indications account for iatrogenic morbidity that could be prevented, this observational study intended to investigate first neonatal outcomes of LP twin pregnancies according to GA at delivery, chorionicity and delivery indication, then non EB delivery indications.

Materials and methods

We conducted a prospective, multicenter, area-based cohort study of the LP deliveries from December 1st 2013, to December 1st 2015 in Emilia Romagna, a region in Northern Italy with nearly 4.5 million people organized in 9 counties. The results of the single pregnancy cohort study were just published [18].

The study steering committee (consisting in 2 obstetricians, 2 neonatologists and 1 epidemiologist) defined the information to collect on pregnancies resulting in LP deliveries, and on neonates’ hospital course. Standardized chart abstraction forms were designed to obtain anonymized data on mothers (i.e maternal demographics, maternal medical and obstetrical complications, labor, and delivery details) and their newborns (i.e birthweight, gender, Apgar scores, admission to the NICU or Intermediate/Step Down Unit, and length of stay, neonatal morbidities, and mortality). In Emilia Romagna, inpatient obstetric and pediatric care was provided at the time of the study by 28 hospitals within the National Health System. Recruitment occurred only at the 21 hospitals with at least 500 deliveries/year, equipped with NICUs or Intermediate/Step Down Units, that could care for LP infants: one obstetrician and one neonatologist/pediatrician from each study site approached mothers with twin pregnancy delivering at 34+ 0–36+ 6 weeks for written informed consent, and respectively completed the maternal and the neonatal data collection forms, as they interviewed the patients and consulted the medical records. Five trained research associates visited the study sites monthly basis to review the maternal and neonatal data collection forms with the physicians that had filled them. At the Data Managing Center (Modena Policlinico Hospital, University of Modena, and Reggio Emilia) research associates used optical character recognition technology (Flexi Capture, Abbyy®, Germany) to scan the data collection sheets, extract pertinent data, and organize it in a password protected database. If automated data extraction failed (approximately 5% of the times), research associates reviewed the forms and manually entered the missing data in the database. Authors have complied with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki regarding ethical conduct of research involving human subjects. Approval from the Institution Review Board of the 9 Emilia Romagna Counties was obtained (n 24,512 _ 25/9/2014). The study was financed by the Emilia Romagna County Grant (n 417,149 _ 2014).

Study population

Women with a viable twin pregnancy were classified according to the indication for delivery as spontaneous preterm labor (sPTL), preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (pPROM) or indicated delivery. The diagnosis of preterm labor was based on clinical criteria of regular uterine contractions accompanied by progressive changes in cervical dilation and effacement [19]. As preterm labor occurred ≥34 weeks, tocolytic therapy was not administered. Women with DC pregnancy presenting with pPROM between 34+ 0- and 36 + 6-weeks’ gestation, who were not in labor within 24 hours after rupture of membranes and had no indication for immediate delivery, were expectantly managed as detailed in the PPROMEXIL trial [20]. Instead, MC pregnancies were not expectantly managed, because of the increased risks of placental abruption, twin to twin transfusion syndrome or intravascular acute shunting [21]. The diagnosis of pPROM was confirmed by visualization of amniotic fluid passing from the cervical canal and pooling in the vagina, a basic pH test of vaginal fluid, or arborization (ferning) of dried vaginal fluid, which is identified under microscopic evaluation. A course of therapy with a combination of a beta lactam and a macrolide antibiotic was left at the discretion of each study site even when pPROM occurred after 34 weeks, as a preliminary inquiry had found such practice to be common. Rupture of membranes was considered as the delivery indication, when spontaneous labor occurred more than 24 hours after pPROM among expectantly managed DC pregnancies, or also if the patient and/or her obstetrician opted to terminate expectant management with an elective delivery. If onset of labor occurred within 24 hours of rupture of membranes, sPTL was considered as the delivery indication; instead, if complications prompting delivery arose among expectantly managed pPROMs, such deliveries were classified as indicated.

Currently no consensus on whether RDS prophylaxis should be administered in twin pregnancies in the LP population, thus no specific recommendations were given concerning administration of antenatal corticosteroids (ANCS) in this period.

The timing of delivery was determined in completed weeks of gestation such that 34 weeks (for example) included deliveries at 34+ 0–34+ 6 weeks. Gestational age was based either on first trimester ultrasound scan or, in women with a regular cycle, on the first day of the last menstrual period if the expected date of delivery differed less than 7 days from that estimated by ultrasound.

Chorionicity was assigned in the 1st trimester of pregnancy by ultrasound assessment of the “twinpeak” or “lambda” sign [22]. After delivery, chorionicity was confirmed in all cases by inspection of the placenta and membranes, as well as by individual review of placental pathology, available in 80% of patients.

Outcome measures

The primary outcome is a composite adverse neonatal outcomes, stratified by GA, chorionicity and delivery indication, including neonatal death, respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), transient tachypnea of the newborn (TTN), mechanical ventilation, hypoglycemia, newborn sepsis, confirmed seizures, stroke, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), cardiopulmonary resuscitation, umbilical-cord-blood arterial pH < 7.0 or base excess < − 12.5, a 5-minute Apgar score ≤ 3, NICU length of stay ≥5 days. As indicated by previous studies, these outcomes are associated with significant risks of neonatal mortality or long-standing adverse health complications, including hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy [23]. Neonatal ipoglicemia was defined as low blood glucose level < 40 mg/dl before 48 hours age [24]. Intraventricular hemorrhage was defined as the presence of blood within the ventricular system including the lateral, third and fourth ventricles. The assessment of IVH grade was based on the Papile’s classification [25]: 1) haemorrhage restricted to the subependymal germinal matrix; 2) subependymal and intraventricular haemorrhage, without ventricular dilatation; 3) subependymal germinal matrix haemorrhage, intraventricular haemorrhage, and ventricular dilatation; and 4) parenchymal haemorrhage associated with intraventricular dilatation.

Non reassuring fetal status was defined as category III [26] or persistent category II fetal heart rate pattern with abnormal labor progress [27], non-reactive non stress test (NST) associated with recurrent decelerations among non-laboring women [28], absent or reverse umbilical artery end diastolic flow in the setting of fetal growth restriction (FGR) [29]. Clinical chorioamnionitis was defined as Triple I [30] with the presence of fever without a clear source plus any of the following: 1) baseline fetal tachycardia (greater than 160 beats per min for 10 min or longer, excluding accelerations, decelerations, and periods of marked variability), 2) maternal white blood cell count greater than 15,000 per mm3 in the absence of corticosteroids and 3) definite purulent fluid from the cervical os.

CPAP and oxygen administration represented non-invasive respiratory support, as opposed to mechanical ventilation. Neonatal sepsis was defined as a clinical syndrome prompting antibiotic treatment, with or without positive cultures [31]. Cerebral lesions were suspected clinically, screened by neonatal brain ultrasound, and confirmed on MRI [3].

Independent medical records reviews by 2 senior authors determined if LP deliveries were due to sPTL, pPROM, maternal and/or fetal indications. Reviewers also determined if indicated deliveries were EB or not EB, according to ACOG [32], as well as Italian guidelines [33]. Discordance between reviewers was resolved consulting a 3rd author. When multiple indications were listed, deliveries were due to EB indications if at least one of them was consistent with the adopted guidelines. The following were considered EB LP twin delivery indications: elective CS in MC twin, preeclampsia with severe features/HELLP syndrome/eclampsia, pPROM in MC twins, FGR with abnormal antenatal testing (abnormal testing included a biophysical profile of 6/10 or worse, abnormal umbilical artery or ductus venosus Doppler, or coexisting oligohydramnios), vaginal bleeding due to placental abruption, non-reassuring fetal heart tracing (a category III fetal heart tracing requiring immediate delivery) [34], twin to twin transfusion syndrome stage II ore above [35], clinical chorioamnionitis [30], and pre-gestational diabetes mellitus not under metabolic control. Deliveries defined as non EB included stable patients such as those with mild chronic hypertension [18], prior myomectomy, prior classical cesarean delivery, or mild cholestasis [36] of pregnancy.

Statistical analysis

As we stratified neonatal outcomes according to delivery indications, we also compared how maternal, fetal, and neonatal characteristics varied in case of sPTL, pPROM or deliveries prompted by maternal and/or fetal conditions. Categorical variables were presented as n (%) and tested with Chi square test or Fisher’s exact test as appropriate. Normally distributed continuous variables were presented as mean ± SD and compared with One Way ANOVA. Non-normally distributed continuous variables were presented as median (IQR) and tested with One Way ANOVA on ranks. A level of statistical significance of P ≤ 0.05 was considered.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to investigate if delivery indications independently affected the risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. The following variables were tested as potential confounders: maternal age, parity, race, low education, smoking, maternal BMI, excessive weight gain, utilization of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), treatment with antenatal corticosteroids (ANCS), ASA, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), or progesterone.

The strength of the association between the covariates and the dependent variable was estimated as area under the curve of a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve plotted with the true-positive rate compared with the false positive rate. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 15 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).


Among the 346 LP twin gestations included in our cohort, 84 (23.4%) were monochorionic pregnancies (of which only 3 were MCMA), while 262 (75.7%) were dichorionic; sPTL accounted for 85 (24.6%) deliveries, pPROM for 66 (19.1%), EB indicated deliveries were 117 (33.8%), while non EB indications were 78 (22.5%).

In the univariate analysis shown in Table 1, maternal and obstetrics characteristics are presented according to delivery indication. When compared to sPTL or pPROM, pregnancies delivered due to maternal and/or fetal indications were associated with higher maternal age (p <  0.01), higher gestational age at delivery (p <  0.01), Caucasian race (p 0.04), ART use (p <  0.01), gestational diabetes (p <  0.01), vaginal bleeding (p <  0.01), prescription of antenatal corticosteroids (p <  0.01), diagnosis of FGR (p <  0.01), and were more frequently monochorionic (p <  0.01). Only 15.3% (53/546) of pregnancies had a vaginal delivery of both fetuses. Cesarean deliveries in non-laboring women were 204 (58.9%), induced labor 37 (10.7%), while sPTL were 105 (30.4%). Women experiencing sPTL had the highest rate of vaginal delivery (27.1%).

Table 1 Maternal and fetal characteristics of twins according to delivery indications

Table 2 summarizes neonatal characteristics. Two hundred twenty-six pregnancies (65.3%) had at least one fetus experiencing one adverse outcome; pregnancies with sPTL, pPROM and indicated deliveries had similar rates of the composite adverse neonatal outcome. Newborn characteristics were similar among study groups; however, mothers with indicated deliveries had lower birthweights (p <  0.01) and higher SGA rates (p <  0.01). Median NICU length of stay was similar among study groups, although stay ≥5 days was less common when indicated deliveries were non EB (p <  0.05).

Table 2 Neonatal outcomes in twins according to delivery indications

Table 3 lists the EB indicated delivery (117, 33.8%) and non EB indicated deliveries (78, 22.5%) according to our expert review.

Table 3 EB and NEB indicated delivery

As detailed in Table 4, multivariate analysis confirmed that delivery indication did not affect the composite adverse neonatal outcomes; the only characteristic that continued to affect the outcome after controlling for confounding was gestational age at delivery (p <  0.01). Moreover, there was at least one adverse neonatal outcome for 94% of babies born at 34 weeks, for 73% of those born at 35 weeks and for 46% of those born at 36 weeks, with a significant difference (p <  0.01).

Table 4 Multivariate logistic regression models investigating the role of gestational age, chorionicity, order and circumstances at delivery on neonatal outcomes


Although outcomes of singleton gestations at 34+ 0–36+ 6 were shown to vary according to delivery indications [37], our large prospective cohort of twin gestation did not corroborate such finding. Instead, we confirmed on twins that significant differences in neonatal outcomes depend on gestational age at delivery, as it was previously established for singletons [38]. Furthermore, we showed that almost 1 out of 4 twin gestation in our cohort was delivered due non EB indications.

The high prevalence of non EB delivery indications in our twin population raises great concerns. Twin pregnancies represent a fragile obstetric population, having worse outcomes than singletons [38]; furthermore, LP deliveries are associated with worse outcomes than early term and term deliveries [10, 39]. Therefore, lack of sound indications for twin deliveries in the LP window combines the downsides of prematurity with the ones of multiple gestations, multiplying the risks of severe complications. Our findings urge a critical review of clinical practice encouraging obstetric providers to familiarize with the indications that prompt delivery among twins, overcome the uneasiness associated with management of twin pregnancies, in order to prevent iatrogenic morbidity. In our cohort 10 deliveries (12.8%) were due to gestational hypertension, 15 (19.2%) to class A1 gestational diabetes mellitus (diet therapy), 2 (2.6%) to mild cholestasis of pregnancy, while no clear indication was stated in 29 instances (37.2%) and translate into 78 (22.5%) early deliveries that could be avoided.

Our results are consistent with previous reports on singleton gestations [40] showing higher rates of non-indicated deliveries in the LP window. Moreover, Reddy et al. reviewed delivery indications for almost 3.5 million births in the United States concluding that 23% of LP births had no documented indication: the author speculated that many of these births without listed indications were due to perceptions of impending morbidity and mortality risks by either patients or providers [41].

The balance between the downsides of prematurity and the risks associated with pregnancy continuation, can be hard to strike in the LP period, especially among twin gestations [31] accounting for a discrepancy in clinical practice according to hospital settings and countries [42]. A recent Delphy survey on delivery indications in singleton pregnancies, showed that Italian experts generally agreed to be more conservative at 34 weeks, favoring delivery at 36 weeks, whatever the clinical scenery [32]. Nevertheless, in our twin population the most non EB indicated deliveries (22.5%) were without a clear medical cause, maybe due to different clinical setting and provider advisability.

Although women with EB deliveries were more likely to have babies with adverse perinatal outcome, this did not remain significant in the multivariate analysis, where the only factor affecting neonatal morbidity was the gestational age at delivery, as demonstrated by other studies [43]. Delivery indication did not significantly affect the outcome of interest even after excluding from the analysis non EB indicated delivery (data not shown).

Six stillbirths were detected in our population: 5 among BC pregnancies, 1 among MC twins. Our stillbirth rate (1.7%) is consistent with the current literature; however, we did not find any difference according to chorionicity [15]. Furthermore, chorionicity did not affect the composite adverse neonatal outcome as shown in the multivariate analysis. Previous reports have shown greater neonatal morbidity and mortality among MC pregnancies, from placental vascular complications [44] such as in TTTS, or in case of intravascular shunting after a single intrauterine death; or due to congenital malformations, selective growth restriction, or maternal complications [13, 14, 45]. We can speculate that improved outcomes among MC twins could be attributed not only to an evidence based antenatal care [12, 46] but also to a generally healthier obstetric population, where risk factors such as obesity [47], hypertensive disorders and diabetes have relatively low prevalence.

The joined 2020 NIH [48] and SMFM consensus recommended delivery at 38 weeks’ gestation for uncomplicated DC twin pregnancies as opposed to 34–37 weeks’ gestation for uncomplicated MC twins [12]. This broad interval was recently revised by a retrospective cohort study showing that elective LP delivery of MC is associated with significantly increased neonatal morbidity that does not seem justifiable by a corresponding reduction in the risk of SB. Therefore, the authors concluded that with a specialized antenatal care for twins and intensive fetal surveillance, delivery at 37 weeks’ gestation appears to be associated with the best outcomes for uncomplicated MC [13]. Our data confirm such findings, suggesting to avoid LP birth both in uncomplicated MC and DC twins to reduce unnecessary admission to NICU and other neonatal complications.

Strengths of this study include the large sample size, area based and multicenter nature of the cohort: both characteristics increase the generalizability of our findings. The prospective design of the survey, along with predefinition of standardized chart abstraction forms completed by obstetricians and pediatricians, and periodically audited by research associates, limit misclassification bias and assures data validity. We also acknowledge some limitations. As the study did not provide clinicians with prespecified delivery indications, it could be challenging at times for study personnel to identify the rationale behind an indicated delivery. However, such lack of standardization also allowed us to collect information about indications that were non EB. Although inconsistencies in ANCS administration may reflect different opinion leaders’ viewpoints, we considered betamethasone treatment among the potential confounders in our multivariate analyses. Moreover, our data are related to the years 2013–2015 and clinical practices might have slightly changed in these years. Finally, due to the exploratory nature of our study, a specific sample size calculation was not performed.


To our knowledge, this is one of the largest prospective studies investigating delivery indications among twin gestations, suggesting that the decision to deliver or not twins in the LP period should consider gestational age at delivery as the main determinant infants’ prognosis. Delivery indications should therefore be accurately considered, to avoid iatrogenic early deliveries responsible of preventable complications. Our findings can also be helpful when counselling mothers at risk of LP delivery and can be used to plan interventions for their newborns.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.



Late preterm


Fetal growth restriction


Preterm prelabor rupture of membranes


Gestational age


Neonatal intensive care unit






Evidence based


Spontaneous preterm labor


Respiratory distress syndrome


Transient tachypnea of the newborn


Intraventricular hemorrhage


Non stress test


Continuous Positive Airway Pressure


Hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, low platelet count


Assisted reproductive technologies


Body mass index


Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome


National institute of health


Society of maternal fetal medicine


  1. Shapiro-Mendoza CK, Lackritz EM. Epidemiology of late and moderate late preterm birth. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;17:120–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bastek JA, et al. Adverse neonatal outcomes: examining the risks between preterm, late preterm, and term infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(4):367e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hibbard JU, et al. Respiratory morbidity in late preterm births. JAMA. 2010;304(4):419.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ghi T, Nanni M, Pierantoni L, Bellussi F, Bacchi Reggiani ML, Faldella G, et al. Neonatal respiratory morbidity in twins versus singletons after elective prelabor caesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;166:156–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McGowan JE, et al. Early childhood development of late preterm infants: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2011;127(6):1111–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dotinga BM, Eshuis MS, Bocca-Tjeertes IF, Kerstjens JM, Koenraad NJA. Van Braeckel, et al., longitudinal growth and neuropsychological functioning at age 7 in moderate and late preterms. Pediatrics. 2016;138(4):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tonse NK. Raju, the “late preterm” birth—ten years later. Pediatrics. 2017;139:1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton P, et al. Births: final data for 2006. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2009;57:1–102.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Newman RB, Unal ER. Multiple gestations: timing of indicated late preterm and early-term births in uncomplicated Dichorionic, Monochorionic, and Monoamniotic twins. Semin Perinatol. 2011;35:277–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Refuerzo JS, Momirova V, Peaceman AM, et al. Neonatal outcomes in twin pregnancies delivered moderately preterm, late preterm and term. Am J Perinatol. 2010;27:537e42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Refuerzo JS. Impact of multiple births on late and moderate prematurity. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;17:143e145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 144: multifetal gestations: twin, triplet, and higher-order multifetal pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:1118–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gratacos E, Ortiz JU, Martinez JM. A systematic approach to the differential diagnosis and management of complications of monochorionic twin pregnancies. Fetal Diagn Ther 2012;32:145–55.

  14. Lewi L, Gucciardo L, Van Mieghem T, et al. Monochorionic/diamniotic twin pregnancies: natural history and risk stratification. Fet Diagn Ther. 2010;27:121–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Po’ G, Monari F, Zanni F, Grandi G, Lupi C, Facchinetti F, et al. A regional audit system for stillbirth: a way to better understand the phenomenon. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):276.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Chauhan SP, Scardo JA, Hayes E, Abuhamad AZ, Berghella V. Twins: prevalence, problems and preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:305e15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gyamfi-Bannerman C, Fuchs KM, Young OM, et al. Nonspontaneous late preterm birth: etiology and outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(456):e1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  18. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 203: Chronic Hypertension in Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:e26–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. Practice Bulletin No. 171: Management of Preterm Labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:e155–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Van der Ham DP, Vijgen SM, Nijhuis JG, PPROMEXIL trial group, et al. Induction of labor versus expectant management in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes between 34 and 37 weeks: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2012;9:1001208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tollenaar LS, Slaghekke F, Middeldorp JM, Klumper FJ, Haak MC, Oepkes D, et al. Twin Anemia polycythemia sequence: current views on pathogenesis, diagnostic criteria, perinatal management, and outcome. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2016;19:222–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Maruotti GM, Saccone G, Morlando M, Martinelli P. First-trimester ultrasound determination of chorionicity in twin gestations using the lambda sign: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;202:66–70.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tita AT, Landon MB, Spong CY, et al. Timing of elective repeat cesarean at term and neonatal outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:111–20.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Alsaleem M, Saadeh L, Kamat D. Neonatal hypoglycemia: a review. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2019;58:1381–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Papile LA, Burstein J, Burstein R, Koffler H. Incidence and evolution of subependymal and intraventricular hemorrhage: a study of infants with birth weights less than 1,500 gm. J Pediatr. 1978;92:529–34.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 106: Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:192–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Clark SL, Nageotte MP, Garite TJ, et al. Intrapartum management of category II fetal heart rate tracings: towards standardization of care. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:89–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 145: antepartum fetal surveillance. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124:182–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Publications Committee. Doppler assessment of the fetus with intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:300–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Peng CC, Chang JH, Lin HY, Cheng PJ, Su BH. Intrauterine inflammation, infection, or both (triple I): a new concept for chorioamnionitis. Pediatr Neonatol. 2018;59:231–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Snoek L, van Kassel MN, Krommenhoek JF, Achten NB, Plötz FB, van Sorge NM, et al. Neonatal early-onset infections: comparing the sensitivity of the neonatal early-onset sepsis calculator to the Dutch and the updated NICE guidelines in an observational cohort of culture-positive cases. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;10(44):101270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Spong CY, Mercer BM, D’altonM KS, Blackwell S, Saade G. Timing of indicated late-preterm and early-term birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(2 Pt 1):323–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Monari F, Parazzini F, Cetin I, Ballarini M, Facchinetti F. Iatrogenic late preterm birth: when is it recommended? A Delphi survey promoted by the Italian Society of Perinatal Medici. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;240:23–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zamora Del Pozo C, Chóliz Ezquerro M, Mejía I, de Terán D, Martínez-Berganza E, Esteban LM, et al. Diagnostic capacity and interobserver variability in FIGO, ACOG, NICE and Chandraharan cardiotocographic guidelines to predict neonatal acidemia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021;15:1–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kontopoulos E, Chmait RH, Quintero RA. Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome: definition, staging, and ultrasound assessment. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2016;19:175–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ovadia C, Seed PT, Sklavounos A, Geenes V, Di Ilio C, Chambers J, et al. Association of adverse perinatal outcomes of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy with biochemical markers: results of aggregate and individual patient data meta-analyses. Lancet. 2019;2(393):899–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Monari F, Chiossi G, Gargano G, Ballarini M, Baronciani D, Coscia A, et al. Delivery indication matters for perinatal outcomes in late preterm newborns. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022;25:1–10.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ribicic R, Kranjcec I, Borosak J, Tumbri J, Mihovilovic Prajz L, Ribicic T. Perinatal outcome of singleton versus twin late preterm infants: do twins mature faster than singletons? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29:1520–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sung, et al. Neonatal outcomes of twin pregnancies delivered at late-preterm versus term gestation based on chorionicity and indication for delivery. J Perinat Med. 2016.

  40. Gyamfi-Bannerman C, Thom EA, Blackwell SC, et al. Antenatal betamethasone for women at risk for late preterm delivery. N Engl J Med. 2016;7(374):1311–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Reddy UM, Ko CW, Raju TN, Willinger M. Delivery indications at late-preterm gestations and infant mortality rates in the United States. Pediatrics. 2009;124:234–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Morais M, Mehta C, Murphy K, Shah PS, Giglia L, Smith PA, et al. How often are late preterm births the result of non-evidence based practices: analysis from a retrospective cohort study at two tertiary referral centres in a nationalised healthcare system. BJOG. 2013;120:1508–14.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Shamshirsaz, et al. Short-term neonatal outcomes in Diamniotic twin pregnancies delivered after 32 weeks and indications of late preterm deliveries. Am J Perinatol. 2014;31:365–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Brown HK, Speechley KN, Macnab J, Natale R, Campbell MK. Maternal fetal and placental conditions associated with medically indicated late preterm and early term delivery: a retrospective study. BJOG. 2016;123:763–70.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Gratacos E, Ortiz JU, Martinez JM. A systematic approach to the differential diagnosis and management of complications of monochorionic twin pregnancies. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2012;32:145–55.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Patient Safety and Quality Committee, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Electronic address:, Hoskins IA, Combs CA. Society for maternal-fetal medicine special statement: updated checklists for management of monochorionic twin pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;223:B16–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Avagliano L, Monari F, Po’ G, Salerno C, Mascherpa M, Maiorana A, et al. The burden of placental histopathology in stillbirths associated with maternal obesity. Am J Clin Pathol. 2020;154(2):225–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tsakiridis I, Giouleka S, Mamopoulos A, Athanasiadis A, Dagklis T. Management of Twin Pregnancies: a comparative review of national and international guidelines. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2020;75:419–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


We are indebted to all colleagues and research fellows for their contributions to data collection:

Bologna research team: Maria Bisulli (Obstetric Unit), Nicola Rizzo (Obstetric Unit), Elisa Moro (Obstetric Unit), Silvia Vandini (Neonatal Unit) from Ospedale S. Orsola- Malpighi di Bologna; Francesco Giura (Neonatal Unit), Fabrizio Sandri (Neonatal Unit), Paola Murano (Obstetric Unit), Barbara Di Marcobernardino (Obstetric Unit), Giorgio Scagliarini (Obstetric Unit) from Ospedale Maggiore of Bologna.

Romagna research team: Elena Baudassi (Neonatal Unit) from Ospedale Infermi of Rimini.

Parma and Piacenza research team: Federica Tamarri (Neonatal Unit), Cinzia Magnani (Neonatal Unit), Alice Suprani (Obstetric Unit), from the Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma; Bruno Mandelli (Obstetric Unit), Melissa Bellini (Pediatric Unit), Luca Le Pera (Pediatric Unit) from the Ospedale of Piacenza; Maria Luisa Bidetti (Pediatric Unit), Giuseppe Crovini (Obstetric Unit) from Ospedale of Fidenza; Salvatore Anfuso (Obstetric Unit), Antonio Albarelli (Obstetric Unit) from Ospedale of Borgotaro.

Modena research team: Petrella Elisabetta (Obstetric Unit), Isotta Guidotti (Neonatal Unit), Fabrizio Ferrari (Neonatal Unit), Mariamaddalena Carbone (Obstetric Unit), from Mother-Infant and Adult Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena.

Reggio Emilia research team: Marina Palmieri (neonatal Unit), Flavio Vanacore (Obstetric Unit) from Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova, IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Lisa Melandri (Pediatric Unit) from Ospedale of Montecchio and Ospedale of Scandiano, Marcella Palmisano (Obstetric Unit) from Ospedale of Guastalla.


The study was financed by the Emilia Romagna County Grant (n 417149 _ 2014).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations




All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission. Each author contributed significantly: FM and MB in Data collection or management and manuscript writing; GC and DM in data analysis and manuscript writing and editing; GG, DB, AC in the project development and FF in project development and manuscript editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesca Monari.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All methods were carried out in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Approval from the Institution Review Board of the 9 Emilia Romagna Counties was obtained (n 24512 _ 25/9/2014). The study was financed by the Emilia Romagna County Grant (n 417149 _ 2014).

Consent for publication

Authors obtained written informed consent for the study and publication.

Competing interests

Authors state no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Monari, F., Chiossi, G., Ballarini, M. et al. Perinatal outcomes in twin late preterm pregnancies: results from an Italian area-based, prospective cohort study. Ital J Pediatr 48, 101 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Twins
  • Monochorionic
  • Dichorionic
  • Late preterm
  • P PROM
  • Medical indication
  • Perinatal oucomes
  • Evidence based indication