Next Article in Journal
Erythropoietin, Fibroblast Growth Factor 23, and Death After Kidney Transplantation
Next Article in Special Issue
Post-Laser Twin Anemia Polycythemia Sequence: Diagnosis, Management, and Outcome in an International Cohort of 164 Cases
Previous Article in Journal
Body-Related Attentional Bias among Men with High and Low Muscularity Dissatisfaction
Previous Article in Special Issue
Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes in Triplet Pregnancies: A Retrospective Cohort Study and Meta-Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 9
Issue 6
10.3390/jcm9061735
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Middle Cerebral Artery Doppler Velocimetry for the Diagnosis of Twin Anemia Polycythemia Sequence: A Systematic Review

by
Clifton O. Brock
1,
Eric P. Bergh
1,2,
Kenneth J. Moise, Jr
1,2,
Anthony Johnson
1,2,
Edgar Hernandez-Andrade
1,
Dejian Lai
3 and
Ramesha Papanna
1,2,*
1
Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin Street, Houston, TX 77030, USA
2
The Fetal Center Children’s Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston, TX 77030, USA
3
Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Texas, 1200 Pressler St, Houston, TX 77030, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9(6), 1735; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061735
Submission received: 6 May 2020 / Revised: 23 May 2020 / Accepted: 3 June 2020 / Published: 4 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Improving Perinatal Outcomes in Twin and Multiple Pregnancy)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Twin anemia polycythemia sequence (TAPS) is a rare complication of monochorionic diamniotic (MCDA) twins. Middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity (MCA-PSV) measurements are used to screen for TAPS while fetal or neonatal hemoglobin levels are required for definitive diagnosis. We sought to perform a systematic review of the efficacy of MCA-PSV in diagnosing TAPS. Search criteria were developed using relevant terms to query the Pubmed, Embase, and SCOPUS electronic databases. Publications reporting diagnostic characteristics of MCA-PSV measurements (i.e., sensitivity, specificity or receiver operator curves) were included. Each article was assessed for bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies II (QUADAS II) tool. Results were assessed for uniformity to determine whether meta-analysis was feasible. Data were presented in tabular form. Among publications, five met the inclusion criteria. QUADAS II analysis revealed that four of the publications were highly likely to have bias in multiple areas. Meta-analysis was precluded by non-uniformity between definitions of TAPS by MCA-PSV and neonatal or fetal hemoglobin levels. High-quality prospective studies with consistent definitions and ultrasound surveillance protocols are still required to determine the efficacy of MCA-PSV in diagnosing TAPS. Other ultrasound findings (e.g., placenta echogenicity discordance) may augment Doppler studies.

1. Introduction

Twin Anemia-Polycythemia Sequence (TAPS) is a rare complication of monochorionic diamniotic (MCDA) twin pregnancies first reported following fetoscopic laser surgery (FLS) for twin to twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) in 2006 [1]. TAPS is caused by chronic blood transfusion through shared placental vessels leading to substantial morbidity as the twins become increasingly anemic and plethoric. While the disease may follow FLS (referred to here as “post-laser TAPS” (plTAPS)) in 3–10% of MCDA pregnancies, spontaneous TAPS (sTAPS), first described in 2007 by Lopriore et al., may develop 2–5% of the time [2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. Middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity (MCA-PSV), as measured during Doppler velocimetry studies, is used to screen for TAPS. Absolute criteria (i.e., MCA-PSV < 1.0 MoMs in the plethoric twin plus MCA-PSV > 1.5 MoMs in the anemic twin, MoM = multiples of the median) and relative criteria (e.g., ΔMCA-PSV > 0.373 or > 0.5 MoMs) have been proposed for diagnosis [5,9,10]. Definitive diagnosis is obtained by comparing twin serum hemoglobin (Hb) levels with or without reticulocyte count ratios either postnatally or by intrauterine umbilical cord blood sampling. Treatment modalities vary by gestational age (GA) and include expectant management, fetoscopic laser surgery, intrauterine transfusion (IUT) with or without partial exchange transfusion (PET), selective reduction and preterm delivery [11,12].
Routine use of MCA Doppler velocimetry to detect TAPS is currently recommended by the International Society for Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) [13]. However, in 2013 the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM) recommended against this practice stating that there is “no evidence that monitoring for TAPS with MCA PSV Doppler at any time, including >26 weeks, improves outcomes [14]”. Since 2013, TAPS has received considerable attention in the literature and the first randomized clinical trial for treatment of TAPS is currently underway [15]. Following these developments, there has been increased enthusiasm for screening protocols utilizing serial MCA Doppler velocimetry [16].
MCA Doppler velocimetry is also the principle screening test for fetal anemia in the setting of maternal alloimmunization to fetal red blood cell antigens [17]. The use of MCA-PSV values to screen for fetal anemia from alloimmunization has been established following extensive research, but with a false positive rate of 10% still prevailing [18]. The method, which may be affected by a range of physiologic parameters, is less well studied in TAPS, which is a unique physiologic entity. Furthermore, MCA Doppler velocimetry may be less efficacious for detecting polycythemia than for anemia [19]. Finally, the definitive diagnosis of TAPS and verification of MCA Doppler velocimetry as a screening tool is confounded at early GAs by the inability to sample fetal Hb due to technical limitations and concern regarding perinatal risks. In this study, we sought to exhaustively review the literature to determine the diagnostic efficacy of MCA Doppler velocimetry in screening for TAPS.

2. Materials and Methods

We performed a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines [20]. The research question of interest was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of MCA Doppler velocimetry for antenatal diagnosis of TAPS. Eligible studies included those where MCA-PSV values were collected to screen for TAPS and fetal or neonatal serum Hb concentrations were also collected as the “gold standard” diagnostic test. Studies written in English during or after 2006 (i.e., when TAPS was first described in the literature) were considered [1]. Case reports, case series and literature that did not undergo peer review (i.e., abstracts, clinical commentary) were excluded.
To locate eligible studies, a search strategy was developed and applied to the Pubmed, Embase and SCOPUS electronic databases. The following terms were queried in April of 2020: “twin anemia polycythemia sequence,” “TAPS” and “feto-fetal transfusion.” In the SCOPUS search, only publications in the “Medicine” and “Health Professions” subject areas were included. Abstracts for all publications retrieved by this search were reviewed by two of the authors (C.B. and E.B.). Publications that appeared as though they may include antenatal screening for TAPS based on abstract review were obtained for complete review. A secondary search (i.e., “by hand”) was performed by reviewing the bibliographies of these publications. The aim of this process was to generate a comprehensive list of primary studies suitable to answer the research question.
Documents retrieved by the primary and secondary searches were reviewed in their entirety. Two independent reviewers (C.B. and E.B.) carefully examined each document and extracted relevant data including the author, PMID number, year of publication, journal and study type (i.e., prospective vs. retrospective). Studies that compared antenatal screening for TAPS by MCA-PSV values to fetal or neonatal serum Hb levels, including either sensitivity/specificity calculations or derivation of a receiver-operative curve (ROC) were considered for analysis. For these studies, we extracted study size, number of TAPS cases, number of plTAPS and sTAPS, stage and GA at TAPS diagnosis and the date range over which women were clinically evaluated. Outcome measures including the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and area under the ROC were also collected. Uniformity of the studies was assessed for the possibility of performing meta-analysis. Because determination of fetal Hb levels may not be possible for pregnancies at earlier GAs, it was also noted whether calculations were stratified by GA. Any discrepancies in extracted data or study inclusion were arbitrated and resolved by a third author (R.P.).
The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies II (QUADAS II) methodology was applied to the selected studies to determine their likelihood of bias and applicability in answering the research question [21]. QUADAS II includes a structured list of 11 “signaling questions” evaluating for bias in the following four domains: (1) patient selection, (2) collection and interpretation of an index test (i.e., MCA-PSV to screen for TAPS), (3) collection and interpretation of a reference standard (i.e., Hb levels to definitively diagnose TAPS), (4) flow/timing of the study. Questions may be answered “yes,” “no,” or “unclear.” Additional questions may be added at the users’ discretion to address possible biases unique to the research question. We added two questions: (1) “Was a clearly defined schedule described for timing of initial and follow-up application of the index test?” (2) “Were reference test values from repeat intrauterine transfusions or reference test values following birth in neonates who had a previous intrauterine transfusion used to calculate sensitivity/specificity?” MCA-PSV is usually measured serially as recommended by ISUOG; the first question was added because a missed diagnosis following inadequate antenatal screening may lead to underestimation of the test’s sensitivity. The second question was added for two reasons: (1) Hb values at the time of intervention, not postnatal Hb values, should be compared with MCA-PSV values at the time of TAPS diagnosis for fetuses that underwent transfusion. (2) The efficacy of MCA-PSV values in predicting fetal anemia decreases following intrauterine transfusion [22]. Based on answers to these 13 questions (see Table 1), the likelihood of bias in the four domains was assessed as “HIGH,” “LOW,” or “UNCLEAR.” Similarly, but without use of signaling questions, concerns about applicability of the studies to the four domains are assessed as “HIGH,” “LOW,” or “UNCLEAR.”
The aim of this study was to collate and summarize the results of primary studies and, if possible, perform meta-analysis to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of MCA-PSV values for diagnosing TAPS. Data were summarized in tabular form. Microsoft Excel (Redmond, WA) was used to tabulate search results, extracted data, and QUADAS II results.

3. Results

The primary search of the Pubmed, Embase, and SCOPUS databases produced 432 publications. Based on abstract review, 54 of these publications were selected to be reviewed in their entirety [1,2,4,5,7,9,10,11,12,16,19,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65]. The secondary search of bibliographies produced three additional publications which were also reviewed in their entirety for a total 57 publications [6,66,67]. The publications are detailed in Table 1 and reasons for exclusion are summarized in Figure 1. Five of the 57 publications, all from the primary search, described a study of MCDA twins where serial ultrasounds with MCA-PSV values were collected to detect TAPS with direct comparison to Hb values [5,9,10,19,47].
After applying QUADAS II methodology to these five studies, four were determined highly likely to have bias in patient selection (Figure 2) [5,9,10,47]. Three were found highly likely to have bias in conduction or interpretation of the index test (i.e., MCA-PSV Doppler values) as well as conduction or interpretation of the standard reference (i.e., Hb levels) [5,10,47]. All of the studies were determined to have low likelihood of bias in flow and timing. The answers to the QUADAS II signaling questions provide rationale for these assessments of bias and are detailed in Table 2. Regarding patient selection, studies by Slaghekke et al. and Veujoz et al. only included women with a diagnosis of TAPS without any uncomplicated MCDA twins [9,47]. Hence, the number of true negatives and false positives, or women without TAPS, appear to have been based on women who were ultimately diagnosed with TAPS with MCA-PSV values and Hb levels collected prior to diagnosis or after treatment and resolution of the disease. Studies by De Sousa et al. and Tollenaar et al. excluded twins that were missing either MCA-PCV values or Hb levels [5,10]. As protocols for serial MCA-PSV analysis (or compliance with such a protocol) over the study periods were not available, the reasons these values were missing, and women excluded, could not be determined. One study appeared to include postnatal Hb levels to calculate sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV in twins that had a prior IUT and another used MCA-PSV/Hb pairs from the time of repeat IUT for the same purpose [10,47]. None of the studies were found to have concerns regarding the applicability of patient selection, the index test, or the standard reference.
Figure 2 Legend: Results of QUADAS II application. QUADAS II consists of four assessments of bias and three assessments of applicability to the study question. A judgement of “HIGH,” “LOW,” or “UNCLEAR” is made for each assessment of each study considered. A “HIGH” judgement means that the study methodology is likely to introduce bias (for bias assessments) or likely lacks applicability to the study question (for applicability assessments). A “LOW” means there is less likelihood of bias or lack of applicability. Answers to the “signaling questions” which support the bias judgements which are detailed in Table 3.
Demographic characteristics of women from each of the selected studies are detailed in Table 3. The studies included 779 women and 122 cases of TAPS. There may be overlap in TAPS cases between studies by Tollenaar et al. and Slaghekke et al. as they are from the same institution (Leiden University, Netherlands) with overlapping study periods [10,47]. All but one study (Slaghekke et al.) reported that the incidence of TAPS ranged from 4.6% to 35.3% (sTAPS and plTAPS together). Tollenaar et al. did not report the incidence of plTAPS and sTAPS separately for all cases (see fotenote, Table 3) [10]. Among the remaining studies, the incidences of plTAPS (total n = 44) and sTAPS (total n = 43) were reported separately, but each type was included together in calculations of sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV. Among studies where plTAPS and sTAPS were delineated and incidence was reported, the combined incidence of sTAPS was 4.8% (31/643). The majority of TAPS was diagnosed after 24 weeks with delivery (mostly by Cesarean section) in the late 3rd trimester (i.e., >32 weeks). Only Veujoz et al. described the disease severity by stages [9].
Table 4 shows sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of MCA-PSV values in predicting the diagnosis of TAPS by differences in intertwin Hb levels. All studies limited analysis to patients where an MCA-PSV value was collected within one week of determining Hb levels by cordocentesis (antenatally) or venipuncture (postnatally). Studies by Tollenaar et al. and Fishel-Bartal et al. defined prenatal TAPS with absolute values (i.e., MCA-PSV > 1.5 MoMs and MCA-PSV < 1.0 MoMs) as well as the relative difference between values [10,19]. De Sousa et al. considered only relative values, and the remaining two studies used only absolute values [5,9,47]. Collectively, four different criteria for a positive MCA-PSV screening test were used between the five studies. None of the studies stratified calculations of the diagnostic characteristics of MCA-PSV values by GA or treatment received.
The criteria for definitive diagnosis of TAPS was similarly heterogeneous. Each study included numerical cutoffs for diagnosis; however, three evaluated the difference in Hb levels between twins for diagnosis of TAPS, while the remaining two used individual Hb levels to diagnose anemia and polycythemia separately. Two of the studies also required the reticulocyte count ratio of the polycythemic twin to the anemic twin to be greater than 1.7 [9,10]. Collectively, the five studies had four different definitions of definitive TAPS. The sensitivities, specificities, PPVs, and NPVs were reported for four of the five studies, while Bartal et al. reported ROC characteristics [19]. Finally, none of the studies stratified calculations by GA or intrauterine treatment for any of the calculations.
Heterogeneity between the studies precluded meta-analysis for pooled estimates of PPV, NPV, sensitivity, or specificity.

4. Discussion

This systematic review arrived at several important findings on the efficacy of MCA-PSV values in diagnosing TAPS: (1) Five studies (two prospective, three retrospective) were found that describe the diagnostic characteristics of MCA-PSV values. (2) plTAPS and sTAPS were considered together in calculations of diagnostic characteristics for all studies. (3) No study stratified calculations of the diagnostic characteristics by GA or treatment. (4) Diagnostic criteria (i.e., “cutoff values”) for the screening test and the diagnostic test were not consistently defined between studies. (5) Because of their retrospective nature, most of the studies likely exhibit bias in patient selection and conduction/interpretation of the index test (MCA-PSV values) and standard reference (Hb levels).
The above findings suggest significant limitations in the diagnosis and management of TAPS. First, false positive and false negative diagnoses are of major concern. Currently, fetal intervention may be undertaken based on MCA Doppler velocimetry which appears to have PPVs ranging from 70% to 100%; however, these PPVs are estimated in retrospective studies with a high likelihood of bias, particularly in patient selection [5,10,47]. This is not surprising as each study includes data from before 2016, when ISUOG first recommended universal serial MCA Doppler velocimetry in MCDA twins [13]. Prospective data by Fishel-Bartal et al. suggest that absolute MCA-PSV values perform modestly in diagnosing TAPS (AUC = 0.687, 95% CI (0.547–0.827) for anemia and AUC = 0.617, 95% CI (0.505–0.728) for polycythemia) [19]. While the same study shows better performance for relative MCA-PSV values (i.e., ΔMCA-PSV, AUC = 0.871, 95% CI (0.757–0.985)), these data are yet to be corroborated in another high-quality prospective study. Furthermore, the incidence of sTAPS in this study (10.1%) is more than twice as high as reported elsewhere (1.2–4.9%, except for De Sousa et al. with an incidence of 9.1%) increasing the likelihood that PPV is overestimated [2,3,4,5,6,7]. Hence, the risk of intervention for TAPS when disease is not truly present may be substantial. As the stage of TAPS is only reported in one of the studies, the degree to which MCA-PSV values may over- or underestimate severe outcomes, which provide greater impetus for intervention, is also unclear.
Of note, the work by Fishel-Bartal et al. highlights an emerging trend of favoring ΔMCA-PSV over absolute MCA-PSV values because of the former’s reported higher sensitivity [19]. Tollenaar et al. retrospectively observed that twins meeting ΔMCA-PSV criteria, but not absolute criteria, have similar postnatal outcomes to twins meeting absolute criteria. This led that group to propose a new staging system for TAPS based on ΔMCA-PSV [10]. Fishel-Bartal et al. suggest that the superiority of ΔMCA-PSV values may be related to the poor predictive ability of MCA-PSV < 1.0 MoM in diagnosing polycythemia; however, Slaghekke et al. report high sensitivity and specificity using this method (Table 4) [19,47]. Further prospective data are required to validate (or invalidate) MCA-PSV < 1.0 MoM and ΔMCA-PSV in diagnosing polycythemia and TAPS, respectively.
The evaluation of diagnostic performance is further complicated by the inability to measure Hb levels when TAPS is diagnosed at an early GA or following FLS. The treatment algorithm published in Leiden recommends FLS prior to 28 weeks, preterm delivery after 32 weeks, and IUT with PET at intermediate GAs for Stage II or greater TAPS [42]. At GAs greater than 32 weeks, MCV-PSV values and Hb levels may be measured in close temporal proximity because delivery is likely to occur soon regardless of whether TAPS is diagnosed (Figure 3A). Thus, the incidence of all four possible outcomes relating MCA-PSV to Hb (true and false positives, true and false negatives) may be determined. These values are required to determine sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV.
For GAs of 28 to 32 weeks, Hb would only be measured when IUT/PET is performed in the setting of Stage II or greater TAPS. As such, true and false negatives cannot be determined (Figure 3B). It is possible that undiagnosed TAPS (i.e., false negatives) account for some portion of the fetal demise observed in otherwise normal appearing MCDA twins [68,69,70]. For GA less than 28 weeks, none of the four possible outcomes may be determined because Hb levels are not typically measured in the setting of FLS (Figure 3C). The diagnostic efficacy of MCA-PSV values cannot be determined if the gold standard diagnostic test (i.e., Hb levels) is unavailable. Using one or more surrogate markers (a so called “gold alloy”) for diagnosis, such as the “starry liver sign”, discordant placental echogenicity, high-output cardiac failure or polycythemic thrombosis (i.e., fetal limb necrosis, bowel infarction with perforation or intracranial hemorrhage) is one method to address such diagnostic quandaries; however, use of this approach was not encountered in our search of the literature [29,71,72].
Following diagnosis, our understanding of the role for various intrauterine treatments is evolving. A recent multicenter study (n = 370) reports a high level of variance in the treatments used (i.e., FLS, IUT/PET, expectant management, early delivery and selective feticide) and the GAs at which they are employed. An advantage in pregnancy prolongation is reported for FLS, but comparative treatments were performed at later GAs [73]. Several smaller studies also address treatment (total n = 185); however, each combined plTAPS with sTAPS, had unsystematic methods of patient inclusion, and directly compared treatments performed across the full range of gestational ages [11,26,52].
Further work is required to provide a valid basis for the diagnosis and treatment of TAPS. sTAPS and plTAPS should be considered separately as data is sparse to suggest whether MCA-PSV values behave similarly in these two physiologically distinct scenarios. We are unaware of any data that separate the two entities as part of an evaluation of MCA-PSV as a screening test. Reliable false positive rates for MCA-PSV may help determine whether the risk of intervention is appropriate. At early GAs, surrogate markers for the disease will be required to determine estimates for the incidence of false positive diagnosis. Further work is also required to elucidate the benefits of intrauterine treatment. While grave outcomes such as neonatal death, ischemic loss of fetal limbs, and cerebellar disruption have been described, it is unclear whether a treatment protocol based on MCA-PSV values can prevent these outcomes [1,74,75,76].
In summary, this systematic review of MCA-PSV values for diagnosis of TAPS reveals that studies supporting this methodology are dissimilar and at risk for bias. The resulting estimates of the PPV of MCA-PSV measurements may be unreliable, and thus lead to attempted treatment of normal twins, particularly in the setting of Stage II disease. Further work is required to reliably estimate the diagnostic performance of MCA-PSV values and determine the risks and benefits of intrauterine treatment of TAPS. Therefore, in the current practice with limited strong supporting data, it is pragmatic to continue surveillance with antenatal monitoring of MCA-PSV for MCDA twins, but to interpret the results with caution. Intervention should be more strongly considered when additional abnormalities are noted such as cardiac failure, abnormal Doppler flow in umbilical artery or ductus venosus, discordant placental echogenicity or hydrops. Even in the presence of normal MCA-PSV in MCDA twins, it is prudent to consider evaluating for other signs of TAPS during ultrasound surveillance. Until more rigorous, large, prospective and well-controlled studies are conducted, many questions related to screening for TAPS will remain unanswered.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: C.O.B., E.P.B., R.P., E.H.-A., A.J., K.J.M.J.; Methodology: C.O.B., E.P.B., R.P.; Data Curation: C.O.B., E.P.B.; Formal Analysis: C.O.B., E.P.B., R.P., D.L.; Writing, Review, and Editing: C.O.B., E.P.B., R.P., E.H.-A., A.J., K.J.M.J., D.L.; Supervision: R.P., A.J., K.J.M.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

No funding was required for the completion of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Robyr, R.; Lewi, L.; Salomon, L.J.; Yamamoto, M.; Bernard, J.P.; Deprest, J.; Ville, Y. Prevalence and management of late fetal complications following successful selective laser coagulation of chorionic plate anastomoses in twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006, 194, 796–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Yokouchi, T.; Murakoshi, T.; Mishima, T.; Yano, H.; Ohashi, M.; Suzuki, T.; Shinno, T.; Matsushita, M.; Nakayama, S.; Torii, Y. Incidence of spontaneous twin anemia-polycythemia sequence in monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies: Single-center prospective study. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2015, 41, 857–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Gucciardo, L.; Lewi, L.; Vaast, P.; Debska, M.; De Catte, L.; Van Meighem, T.; Doné, E.; Devlieger, R.; Deprest, J. Twin anemia polycythemia sequence from a prenatal perspective. Prenat. Diagn. 2010, 30, 438–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lopriore, E.; Deprest, J.; Slaghekke, F.; Oepkes, D.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Vandenbussche, F.P.H.A.; Lewi, L. Placental characteristics in monochorionic twins with and without twin anemia-polycythemia sequence. Obstet. Gynecol. 2008, 112, 753–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tavares de Sousa, M.; Fonseca, A.; Hecher, K. Role of fetal intertwin difference in middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity in predicting neonatal twin anemia-polycythemia sequence. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2019, 53, 794–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lewi, L.; Jani, J.; Blickstein, I.; Huber, A.; Gucciardo, L.; Van Mieghem, T.; Doné, E.; Boes, A.S.; Hecher, K.; Gratacós, E.; et al. The outcome of monochorionic diamniotic twin gestations in the era of invasive fetal therapy: A prospective cohort study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2008, 199, 514.e1–514.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. de Villiers, S.F.; Slaghekke, F.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Walther, F.J.; Oepkes, D.; Lopriore, E. Placental characteristics in monochorionic twins with spontaneous versus post-laser twin anemia-polycythemia sequence. Placenta 2013, 34, 456–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Lopriore, E.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Oepkes, D.; Kanhai, H.H.; Walther, F.J.; Vandenbussche, F.P. Twin anemia-polycythemia sequence in two monochorionic twin pairs without oligo-polyhydramnios sequence. Placenta 2007, 28, 47–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Veujoz, M.; Sananès, N.; Severac, F.; Meyer, N.; Weingertner, A.S.; Kohler, M.; Guerra, F.; Gaudineau, A.; Nisand, I.; Favre, R. Evaluation of prenatal and postnatal diagnostic criteria for twin anemia-polycythemia sequence. Prenat. Diagn. 2015, 35, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Tollenaar, L.S.A.; Lopriore, E.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Haak, M.C.; Klumper, F.J.; Oepkes, D; Slaghekke, F. Improved prediction of twin anemia-polycythemia sequence by delta middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity: New antenatal classification system. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2019, 53, 788–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Slaghekke, F.; Favre, R.; Peeters, S.H.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Weingertner, A.S.; van Zwet, E.W.; Klumper, F.J.; Oepkes, D.; Lopriore, E. Laser surgery as a management option for twin anemia-polycythemia sequence. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2014, 44, 304–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Khalil, A.; Gordijn, S.; Ganzevoort, W.; Thilganathan, B.; Johnson, A.; Baschat, A.; Hecher, K.; Reed, K.; Lewi, L.; Deprest, J.; et al. Consensus diagnostic criteria and monitoring of twin anemia polycythemia sequence: A Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Khalil, A.; Rodgers, M.; Baschat, A.; Bhide, A.; Gratacós, E.; Hccker, K.; Kilby, M.D.; Lewi, L.; Nicolaides, K.H.; Oepkes, D.; et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: Role of ultrasound in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 47, 247–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Simpson, L.L. Twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2013, 208, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Netherlands Trial. Register. Trial NL6879 (NTR7057). The TAPS Trial: Fetoscopic Laser Surgery for Twin Anemia Polycythemia. Sequence—A Multicenter Open-Label Randomized. Controlled Trial. Available online: https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6879 (accessed on 3 June 2020).
  16. Nicholas, L.; Fischbein, R.; Aultman, J.; Ernst-Milner, S. Dispelling Myths about Antenatal TAPS: A Call for Action for Routine MCA-PSV Doppler Screening in the United States. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. ACOG Practice Bulletin, No. 192: Management of Alloimmunization During Pregnancy. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018, 131, e82–e90. [CrossRef]
  18. Mari, G. Middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity for the diagnosis of fetal anemia: The untold story. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2005, 25, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fishel-Bartal, M.; Weisz, B.; Mazaki-Tovi, S.; Ashwal, E.; Chayen, B.; Lipitz, S.; Yinon, Y. Can middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity predict polycythemia in monochorionic-diamniotic twins? Evidence from a prospective cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 48, 470–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009, 339, b2700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Whiting, P.F.; Rutjes, A.W.; Westwood, M.E.; Mallett, S.; Deeks, J.J.; Reitsma, J.B.; Leeflang, M.M.G.; Sterne, J.A.C.; Bossuyt, P.M.M. QUADAS-2 Group QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann. Intern. Med. 2011, 155, 529–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Scheier, M.; Hernandez-Andrade, E.; Fonseca, E.B.; Nicolaides, K.H. Prediction of severe fetal anemia in red blood cell alloimmunization after previous intrauterine transfusions. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006, 195, 1550–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Visser, G.L.; Tollenaar, L.S.A.; Bekker, V.; Te Pas, A.B.; Lankester, A.C.; Oepkes, D.; Lopriore, E.; Verbeek, L. Leukocyte Counts and Other Hematological Values in Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome and Twin Anemia-Polycythemia Sequence. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 2020, 47, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Tollenaar, L.S.A.; Lopriore, E.; Slaghekke, F.; Oepkes, D.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Haak, M.C.; Klumper, F.J.C.M.; Tan, R.N.G.B.; Rijken, M.; Van Klink, J.M.M. High risk of long-term neurodevelopmental impairment in donor twins with spontaneous twin anemia-polycythemia sequence. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2020, 55, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Mao, Q.; Chu, S.; Shapiro, S.; Yao, H.; De Paepe, M.E. Discordant placental oxygenation and autophagy in twin anemia-polycythemia sequence (TAPS). Placenta 2020, 90, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Hill, K.M.; Masoudian, P.; Fung-Kee-Fung, K.; El Demellawy, D. Intrauterine Interventions for the Treatment of Twin Anemia-Polycythemia Sequence: A Systematic Review. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2019, 41, 981–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Nicholas, L.D.; Fischbein, R.L.; Bhamidipalli, S.S. Twin anemia-polycythemia sequence and routine monitoring practices amongst maternal-fetal medicine specialists in the United States: An initial investigation. J. Perinat. Med. 2019, 47, 388–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tollenaar, L.S.A.; Slaghekke, F.; van Klink, J.M.M.; Groene, S.G.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Haak, M.C.; Klumper, F.J.C.M.; Oepkes, D.; Lopriore, E. Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome with Anemia-Polycythemia: Prevalence, Characteristics, and Outcome. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Tollenaar, L.S.A.; Lopriore, E.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Haak, M.C.; Oepkes, D.; Slaghekke, F. Prevalence of placental dichotomy, fetal cardiomegaly and starry-sky liver in twin anemia polycythemia sequence. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bamberg, C.; Diemert, A.; Glosemeyer, P.; Hecher, K. Quantified discordant placental echogenicity in twin anemia-polycythemia sequence (TAPS) and middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2018, 52, 373–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Donepudi, R.; Akkermans, J.; Mann, L.; Klumper, F.J.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Lopriore, E.; Moise, K.J., Jr.; Bebbington, M.; Johnson, A.; Oepkes, D.; et al. Impact of cannula size on recurrent twin-twin transfusion syndrome and twin anemia-polycythemia sequence after fetoscopic laser surgery. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2018, 52, 744–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. McDonald, R.; Hodges, R.; Knight, M.; Teoh, M.; Edwards, A.; Neil, P.; Wallace, E.M.; DeKoninck, P. Optimal Interval between Ultrasound Scans for the Detection of Complications in Monochorionic Twins. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 2017, 41, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Verbeek, L.; Slaghekke, F.; Sueters, M.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Klumper, F.J.; Haak, M.C.; Oepkes, D.; Lopriore, E. Hematological disorders at birth in complicated monochorionic twins. Expert Rev. Hematol. 2017, 10, 525–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. De Paepe, M.E.; Gündoğan, F.; Mao, Q.; Chu, S.; Shapiro, S. Redness discordance in monochorionic twin placentas: Correlation with clinical and placental findings. Placenta 2017, 60, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sato, Y.; Ishii, K.; Yokouchi, T.; Murakoshi, T.; Kiyoshi, K.; Nakayama, S.; Yonetani, N.; Mitsuda, N. Incidences of Feto-Fetal Transfusion Syndrome and Perinatal Outcomes in Triplet Gestations with Monochorionic Placentation. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 2016, 40, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Suzuki, S. Perinatal Outcomes of Monochorionic-Diamniotic Twin Pregnancies Uncomplicated at 28 Weeks of Gestation. Jpn. Clin. Med. 2016, 7, 15–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Lucewicz, A.; Fisher, K.; Henry, A.; Welsh, A.W. Review of the correlation between blood flow velocity and polycythemia in the fetus, neonate and adult: Appropriate diagnostic levels need to be determined for twin anemia-polycythemia sequence. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 47, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Donepudi, R.; Papanna, R.; Snowise, S.; Johnson, A.; Bebbington, M.; Moise, K.J., Jr. Does anemia-polycythemia complicating twin-twin transfusion syndrome affect outcome after fetoscopic laser surgery? Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 47, 340–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Stagnati, V.; Pagani, G.; Fichera, A.; Prefumo, F. Intertwin discrepancy in middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity and third-trimester fetal growth restriction in monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 48, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ashwal, E.; Yinon, Y.; Fishel-Bartal, M.; Tsur, A.; Chayen, B.; Weisz, B.; Lipitz, S. Twin Anemia-Polycythemia Sequence: Perinatal Management and Outcome. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 2016, 40, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tollenaar, L.S.; Zhao, D.P.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Slaghekke, F.; Oepkes, D.; Lopriore, E. Color Difference in Placentas with Twin Anemia-Polycythemia Sequence: An Additional Diagnostic Criterion? Fetal Diagn. Ther. 2016, 40, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tollenaar, L.S.; Slaghekke, F.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Klumper, F.J.; Haak, M.C.; Oepkes, D.; Lopriore, E. Twin Anemia Polycythemia Sequence: Current Views on Pathogenesis, Diagnostic Criteria, Perinatal Management, and Outcome. Twin Res. Hum. Genet. 2016, 19, 222–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Couck, I.; Lewi, L. The Placenta in Twin-to-Twin Transfusion Syndrome and Twin Anemia Polycythemia Sequence. Twin Res. Hum. Genet. 2016, 19, 184–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Hiersch, L.; Eitan, M.; Ashwal, E.; Weisz, B.; Chayen, B.; Lipitz, S.; Yinon, Y. Amniotic fluid discordance in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies is associated with increased risk for twin anemia-polycythemia sequence. Prenat. Diagn. 2016, 36, 1099–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sananès, N.; Veujoz, M.; Severac, F.; Barthoulot, M.; Meyer, N.; Weingertner, A.S.; Kohler, M.; Guerra, F.; Gaudineau, A.; Nisand, I.; et al. Evaluation of the Utility of in utero Treatment of Twin Anemia-Polycythemia Sequence. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 2015, 38, 170–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Van Winden, K.R.; Quintero, R.A.; Kontopoulos, E.V.; Korst, L.M.; Llanes, A.; Chmait, R.H. Pre-Operative Twin Anemia/Polycythemia in the Setting of Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome (TTTS). Fetal Diagn. Ther. 2015, 37, 274–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Slaghekke, F.; Pasman, S.; Veujoz, M.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Lewi, L.; Devlieger, R.; Favre, R.; Lopriore, E.; Oepkes, D. Middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity to predict fetal hemoglobin levels in twin anemia-polycythemia sequence. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2015, 46, 432–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Sueters, M.; Oepkes, D. Diagnosis of twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, selective fetal growth restriction, twin anaemia-polycythaemia sequence, and twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2014, 28, 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mabuchi, A.; Ishii, K.; Yamamoto, R.; Taguchi, T.; Murata, M.; Hayashi, S.; Mitsuda, N. Clinical characteristics of monochorionic twins with large hemoglobin level discordance at birth. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2014, 44, 311–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Slaghekke, F.; van Klink, J.M.; Koopman, H.M.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Oepkes, D.; Lopriore, E. Neurodevelopmental outcome in twin anemia-polycythemia sequence after laser surgery for twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2014, 44, 316–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Baschat, A.A.; Oepkes, D. Twin anemia-polycythemia sequence in monochorionic twins: Implications for diagnosis and treatment. Am. J. Perinatol. 2014, 31 (Suppl. 1), S25–S30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rossi, A.C.; Prefumo, F. Perinatal outcomes of twin anemia-polycythemia sequence: A systematic review. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2014, 36, 701–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Zhao, D.; Slaghekke, F.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Duan, T.; Oepkes, D.; Lopriore, E. Placental share and hemoglobin level in relation to birth weight in twin anemia-polycythemia sequence. Placenta 2014, 35, 1070–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Verbeek, L.; Slaghekke, F.; Hulzebos, C.V.; Oepkes, D.; Walther, F.J.; Lopriore, E. Hypoalbuminemia in donors with twin anemia-polycythemia sequence: A matched case-control study. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 2013, 33, 241–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Zhao, D.P.; de Villiers, S.F.; Slaghekke, F.; Walther, F.J.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Oepkes, D.; Lopriore, E. Prevalence, size, number and localization of vascular anastomoses in monochorionic placentas. Placenta 2013, 34, 589–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Favre, R.; Koch, A.; Weingertner, A.S.; Sananes, N.; Tu Trieu, N.; Kohler, M.; Guerra, F.; Nisand, I. Vascular pattern in monochorionic placentas with spontaneous TAPS and TTTS with residual anastomoses after laser: A case-control study. Prenat. Diagn. 2013, 33, 979–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nakayama, S.; Ishii, K.; Kawaguchi, H.; Hayashi, S.; Hidaka, N.; Murakoshi, T.; Mitsuda, N. Perinatal outcome of monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies managed from early gestation at a single center. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2012, 38, 692–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. de Villiers, S.; Slaghekke, F.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Klumper, F.J.; Walther, F.J.; Oepkes, D.; Lopriore, E. Arterio-arterial vascular anastomoses in monochorionic twin placentas with and without twin anemia-polycythemia sequence. Placenta 2012, 33, 227–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lopriore, E.; Slaghekke, F.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Klumper, F.J.; van Lith, J.M.; Walther, F.J.; Oepkes, D. Accurate and simple evaluation of vascular anastomoses in monochorionic placenta using colored dye. J. Vis. Exp. 2011, e3208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Lopriore, E.; Slaghekke, F.; Oepkes, D.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Vandenbussche, F.P.; Walther, F.J. Hematological characteristics in neonates with twin anemia-polycythemia sequence (TAPS). Prenat. Diagn. 2010, 30, 251–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Slaghekke, F.; Kist, W.J.; Oepkes, D.; Pasman, S.A.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Klumper, F.J.; Walther, F.J.; Vandenbussche, F.P.H.A.; Lopriore, E. Twin anemia-polycythemia sequence: Diagnostic criteria, classification, perinatal management and outcome. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 2010, 27, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lopriore, E.; Slaghekke, F.; Oepkes, D.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Vandenbussche, F.P.; Walther, F.J. Clinical outcome in neonates with twin anemia-polycythemia sequence. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2010, 203, 54.e1–54.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Habli, M.; Bombrys, A.; Lewis, D.; Lim, F.Y.; Polzin, W.; Maxwell, R.; Crombleholme, T. Incidence of complications in twin-twin transfusion syndrome after selective fetoscopic laser photocoagulation: A single-center experience. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009, 201, 417.e1–417.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Slaghekke, F.; Kist, W.J.; Oepkes, D.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Klumper, F.J.; Vandenbussche, F.P.H.A.; Lopriore, E. TAPS and TOPS: Two distinct forms of feto-fetal transfusion in monochorionic twins. Z. Geburtshilfe Neonatol. 2009, 213, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Lopriore, E.; Oepkes, D.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Vandenbussche, F.P. You only find what you are looking for. BJOG 2007, 114, 1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Lopriore, E.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Oepkes, D.; Klumper, F.J.; Walther, F.J.; Vandenbussche, F.P. Residual anastomoses after fetoscopic laser surgery in twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome: Frequency, associated risks and outcome. Placenta 2007, 28, 204–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Mackie, F.L.; Morris, R.K.; Kilby, M.D. The prediction, diagnosis and management of complications in monochorionic twin pregnancies: The OMMIT (Optimal Management of Monochorionic Twins) study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017, 17, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Farah, N.; Hogan, J.; Johnson, S.; Stuart, B.; Daly, S. Prospective risk of fetal death in uncomplicated monochorionic twins. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2012, 91, 382–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Barigye, O.; Pasquini, L.; Galea, P.; Chambers, H.; Chappell, L.; Fisk, N.M. High risk of unexpected late fetal death in monochorionic twins despite intensive ultrasound surveillance: A cohort study. PLoS Med. 2005, 2, e172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Cheong-See, F.; Schuit, E.; Arroyo-Manzano, D.; Asma, K.; Barrett, J.; Joseph, K.S.; Asztalos, E.; Hack, K.; Lewi, L.; Lim, A.; et al. Prospective risk of stillbirth and neonatal complications in twin pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2016, 354, i4353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Reitsma, J.B.; Rutjes, A.W.; Khan, K.S.; Coomarasamy, A.; Bossuyt, P.M. A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2009, 62, 797–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Parthenis, C.; Koleskas, D.; Spanoudaki, C.; Delivoria, V.; Souka, A. Upper limb vascular occlusion in the recipient of a monochorionic twin pair. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015, 28, 922–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Tollenaar, L.S.A.; Slaghekke, F.; Lewi, L.; Ville, Y.; Lanna, M.; Weingertner, A.; Ryan, G.; Arévalo, S.; Khalil, A.; Brock, C.O.; et al. Treatment and outcome in 370 cases with spontaneous or post-laser twin anemia polycythemia sequence managed in 17 different fetal therapy centers. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Stranak, Z.; Korcek, P.; Hympanova, L.; Kyncl, M.; Krofta, L. Prenatally Acquired Multiple Limb Ischemia in a Very Low Birth Weight Monochorionic Twin. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 2017, 41, 237–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Brinsmead, S.K.; Walsh, C.A. TAPS-related fetal cerebellar disruption. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017, 30, 2354–2355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Lopriore, E.; Slaghekke, F.; Kersbergen, K.J.; de Vries, L.S.; Drogtrop, A.P.; Middeldorp, J.M.; Oepkes, D.; Benders, M.J. Severe cerebral injury in a recipient with twin anemia-polycythemia sequence. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2013, 41, 702–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 09 01735 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of Study Inclusion.
Figure 1. Flowchart of Study Inclusion.
Jcm 09 01735 g001
Jcm 09 01735 g002 550
Figure 2. QUADAS II Systematic Assessment of Bias for Included Studies.
Figure 2. QUADAS II Systematic Assessment of Bias for Included Studies.
Jcm 09 01735 g002
Jcm 09 01735 g003 550
Figure 3. TAPS Screening by Gestational Age (or Treatment Modality). Ability to determine true or false positives and negatives according to the availability of Hb levels (i.e., the gold standard) at (A) greater than 32 weeks, (B) 28–32 weeks, and (C) less than 28 weeks gestational age. Values shaded in red or green can be determined whereas values shaded in grey cannot be determined.
Figure 3. TAPS Screening by Gestational Age (or Treatment Modality). Ability to determine true or false positives and negatives according to the availability of Hb levels (i.e., the gold standard) at (A) greater than 32 weeks, (B) 28–32 weeks, and (C) less than 28 weeks gestational age. Values shaded in red or green can be determined whereas values shaded in grey cannot be determined.
Jcm 09 01735 g003
Table
Table 1. Studies Select for Full Review for MCA-PSV diagnosis of TAPS.
Table 1. Studies Select for Full Review for MCA-PSV diagnosis of TAPS.
Document NumberAuthorPubmed IDYearReason for Exclusion
1Visser et al.312611542020Prenatal MCA-PSV not reported
2Tollenaar et al.314325802020Postnatal Hb not reported
3Mao et al.320565572020Neither prenatal MCA-PSV nor postnatal Hb were reported
4Tavares de Sousa et al.302070092019Included
5Tollenaar et al.301254142019Included
6Nicholas et al.307632672019Review article
7Hill et al.312306622019Systematic review on treatments
8Nicholas et al.312775212019Review article
9Tollenaar et al.313660312019Postnatal Hb not reported
10Khalil et al.316055052019Review article
11Tollenaar et al.318563262019Postnatal Hb not reported
12Bamberg et al.285571522018Postnatal Hb not reported
13Donepudi et al.289255892018Postnatal Hb not reported
14McDonald et al.275610942017Neither prenatal MCA-PSV nor postnatal Hb were reported
15Verbeek et al.284605422017Prenatal MCA-PSV not reported
16De Paepe et al.292082402017Prenatal MCA-PSV not reported
17Fishel-Bartal et al.266635742016Included
18Sato et al.267600432016Study on triplets with monochorionic placentation
19Suzuki et al.272574022016Neither prenatal MCA-PSV nor postnatal Hb were reported
20Lucewicz et al.255808962016Review article
21Donepudi et al.260337052016Postnatal Hb not reported
22Stagnati et al.261730652016Postnatal Hb not reported
23Ashwal et al.265805462016Neither prenatal MCA-PSV nor postnatal Hb were reported
24Tollenaar et al.267888482016Prenatal MCA-PSV not reported
25Tollenaar et al.270687152016Review article
26Couck et al.270984572016Review article
27Hiersch et al.277345052016Both parameters reported, however cannot determine true/false negatives (i.e., Hb levels when MCA-PSV were negative). Specificity, sensitivity, ROC not reported.
28Sananes et al.257907452015Prenatal MCA-PSV not reported
29Veujoz et al.254841822015Included
30Yokouchi et al.255101812015Prenatal MCA-PSV not reported
31Van Winden et al.257214252015Neither prenatal MCA-PSV nor postnatal Hb were reported
32Slaghekke et al.260947342015Included
33Sueters et al.244338232014Review article
34Mabuchi et al.245856852014Prenatal MCA-PSV not reported
35Slaghekke et al.247064782014Prenatal MCA-PSV not reported
36Slaghekke et al.247530272014Neither prenatal MCA-PSV nor postnatal Hb were reported
37Baschat et al.248583172014Review article
38Rossi et al.252221652014Systematic review of outcomes
39Zhao et al.254490312014Neither prenatal MCA-PSV nor postnatal Hb were reported
40de Villiers et al.234812212013Neither prenatal MCA-PSV nor postnatal Hb were reported
41Verbeek et al.234859512013Prenatal MCA-PSV not reported
42Zhao et al.236395772013Neither prenatal MCA-PSV nor postnatal Hb were reported
43Favre et al.237447232013Neither prenatal MCA-PSV nor postnatal Hb were reported
44Nakayama et al.224137502012Neither prenatal MCA-PSV nor postnatal Hb were reported
45de Villiers et al.222577472012Neither prenatal MCA-PSV nor postnatal Hb were reported
46Lopriore et al.219123732011Neither prenatal MCA-PSV nor postnatal Hb were reported
47Lopriore et al.200879092010Prenatal MCA-PSV not reported
48Slaghekke et al.203392962010Review article
49Lopriore et al.204174892010Prenatal MCA-PSV not reported
50Habli et al.197889732009Neither prenatal MCA-PSV nor postnatal Hb were reported
51Slaghekke et al.200992112009Review article
52Lopriore et al.188271162008Neither prenatal MCA-PSV nor postnatal Hb were reported
53Lopriore et al.178776932007Letter to editor
54Robyr et al.165224152006Unclear if Hb was measured on cases with normal MCA
Studies from the secondary search of bibliographies
1Lopriore et al.166440092006Neither prenatal MCA-PSV nor postnatal Hb were reported
2Lewi et al.185331142008Neither prenatal MCA-PSV nor postnatal Hb were reported
3Mackie et al.285494672017Neither prenatal MCA-PSV nor postnatal Hb were reported
Abbreviations: Hb = hemoglobin concentration, MCA-PSV = middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity.
Table
Table 2. QUADAS II Signaling Questions for Included Studies.
Table 2. QUADAS II Signaling Questions for Included Studies.
QUADAS II Signaling QuestionsDe Sousa 2019Tollenaar 2019Fishel-Bartal
2016		Slaghekke 2015Veujoz 2015
Domain 1: Patient Selection Risk of Bias
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?No *YesYesNo ƚNo ƚ
Was a case-control design avoided?YesYesYesNo ƚNo ƚ
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?YesNo ǂYesYesYes
Domain 2: Index Test Bias Risk of Bias
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?YesYesYesYesYes
If a threshold was used, was it prespecified?UnclearUnclearUnclearYesYes
Was a clearly defined schedule described for timing of initial and follow-up application of the index test?No §No §YesNo §Yes
Domain 3: Reference Test Risk of Bias
Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition?YesYesYesYesYes
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results or the index test?UnclearUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclear
Were reference test values from repeat intrauturine transfusions or reference test values following birth in neonates who had a previous intrauterine transfusion used to calculate sensitivity/specificity?NoYes NoYes #No
Domain 4: Flow and Timing Risk of Bias
Was there an appropriate interval between the test(s) and reference standard?Yes (at birth)Yes (≤1 wk)Yes (≤1 wk)Yes (<48 h)Yes (at birth)
Did all patients receive the reference standard?YesYesYesYesUnclear
Did patients receive the same reference standard?YesYesYesYesYes
Were all patients included in the analysis?YesYesNo (69/162, 43%)YesNo (9/20, 45%)
* A retrospective study design was applied without explanation of a standardized protocol for the timing of either the index test (MCA-PSV) or reference standard (Hb) during the retrospective period. Patients were not included when MCA-PSV (73/256, 29%) or Hb data (3/256, 1%) were not available. Patients were also not included if the interval between MCA-PSV and Hb data was greater than one week. ƚ These studies were limited to patients with TAPS (i.e., not consecutive or random MCDA twins). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using Hb and MCA-PSV values at times when patients met, versus did not meet, the criteria for diagnosis (i.e., multiple MCA-PSV, Hb pairs per patient). Slaghekke et al. did not include patients with missing data for Hb or MCA-PSV. ǂ A retrospective study design was applied without explanation of a standardized protocol for the timing of either the index test (MCA-PSV) or reference standard (Hb) during the retrospective period. Patients were excluded when MCA-PSV (221/351, 63%) or Hb (50/351, 14%) data were not available. Patients were also excluded if the interval between MCA-PSV and Hb data was greater than one week. § These studies did not describe a schedule for application of MCA-PSV measurement (i.e., patients considered, starting gestational age and frequency of follow up) or report ultrasound findings that might have prompted more frequent Doppler studies. Sensitivity and specificity calculations were performed using “postnatal intertwin Hb difference,” however 10 cases of intrauterine transfusion were reported. # Sensitivity and specificity calculations were performed using MCA-PSV/Hb pairs at the time of repeat IUT.
Table
Table 3. Demographic characteristics of women from the selected studies.
Table 3. Demographic characteristics of women from the selected studies.
CharacteristicDe Sousa 2019Tollenaar 2019Fishel-Bartal
2016		Slaghekke 2015Veujoz 2015
Study DesignRetrospectiveRetrospectiveProspectiveRetrospectiveProspective
Number of women154806943433
Number and Type of TAPS15 (14 s + 1 pl)35 *9 (7 s + 2 pl)43 (12 s + 31 pl)20 (10 s + 10 pl)
Incidence of TAPS9.7%35.3%13.0%N/A4.6%
GA at delivery all twins (wks)35 (26–39) wks35 (33–36) controls only33.6 (24.6–38.3)----
GA at diagnosis (wks)34.8 (26–39)<1 wk before delivery<1 wk before delivery25 (19–30)
Antenatal diagnosis
26.5 (19–32)
Postnatal diagnosis		24.8 +/− 5.9
GA at delivery for TAPS cases (wks)29 + 4 to 37 + 032 (29–34)--25 (19–30)
Antenatal diagnosis
26.5 (19–32)
Postnatal diagnosis		32.1 +/− 1.9
TAPS Stage at diagnosisNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedStage I-47.0%
Stage II-29.4%
Stage III-17.7%
Stage IV-5.9%
Stage V-0.0%
Treatment of TAPSNot reportedIUT-6
IUT + PET-4		IUT-2Not reportedIUT-2
FLS-7
Overall Survival following TAPS diagnosisNot reported55/58 (94.8%)Not reported69/82 (84.1%)15/20 (75.0%)
Cesarean Delivery72.1%Not reported50.7%78.9%Not reported
Abbreviations: FLS = fetoscopic laser surgery, pl = post-laser, Hb = hemoglobin concentration, IUT = intrauterine transfusion MCA-PSV = middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity, ΔMCA-PSV = difference in MCA-PSV between twins, MoM = multiples of the median, PET = partial exchange transfusion, s = spontaneous, TAPS = twin anemia polycythemia sequence, wk = week. * Of 35 TAPS cases, type was specified for 29: There were 7 sTAPS and 22 plTAPS.
Table
Table 4. Diagnostic characteristics of TAPS by MCA-PSV compared with Hb difference.
Table 4. Diagnostic characteristics of TAPS by MCA-PSV compared with Hb difference.
CharacteristicDe Sousa 2019Tollenaar 2019Fishel-Bartal
2016		Slaghekke 2015Veujoz 2015
Interval between MCA-PSV and Hb measurement2 (0–7) days<1 week<1 week--<48 h
Antenatal finding for diagnosis of TAPSΔMCA-PSV > 0.373 MOM
(cutoff determined by ROC analysis)		(1) MCA-PSV < 1.0 MOM (recipient),
MCA-PSV > 1.5 MOM(donor)
(2) ΔMCA-PSV > 0.5 MOM		(1) MCA-PSV < 1.0 MOM (recipient),
MCA-PSV > 1.5 MOM (donor)
(2) ΔMCA-PSV by ROC analysis.
(ROC cutoff not reported)		MCA-PSV < 1.0 MOMs (recipient),
MCA-PSV > 1.5 MOMs (donor)		MCA-PSV < 1.0 MOMs (recipient),
MCA-PSV > 1.5 MOMs (donor)
Postnatal finding for diagnosis of TAPSHb difference > 90% (7.25 Hb)Hb difference > 8 g/dL and
Reticulocyte Ratio > 1.7 or anastomoses < 1mm		Anemia: Hct < 45%
Polycythemia: Hct > 65%		Anemia: Hct > 5 SD below mean
Polycythemia: Hct > 5 SD above mean		Hb difference > 8 g/dL and
Reticulocyte Ratio > 1.7 or anastomoses < 1mm
AUC (95% CI)0.976 (0.935–0.993)Not reported1) Anemia: 0.687 (0.547–0.827)
Polycythemia: 0.617 (0.505–0.728)
2) TAPS 0.871 (0.757–0.985)		Not ReportedNot Reported
Sensitivity (95% CI)93.3% (68.1–99.8)1) 46% (30–62)
2) 83% (67–92)		Not reportedAnemia: 94% (85–98)
Polycythemia: 97% (87–99)		71%
Specificity (95% CI)95.7% (90.8–98.4)1) 100% (29–100)
2) 100% (92–100)		Not reportedAnemia: 74% (62–83)
Polycythemia: 96% (89–99)		50%
PPV (95% CI)70.0% (45.7–88.1)1) 100% (81–100)
2) 100% (88–100)		Not reportedAnemia: 76% (65–85)
Polycythemia: 93% (93–100)		88%
NPV (95% CI)99.3% (95.9–100)1) 70% (58–80)
2) 88% (77–94)		Not reportedAnemia: 94% (83–98)
Polycythemia: 99% (93–100)		33%
Abbreviations: AUC = area under the curve, Hb = hemoglobin concentration, MCA-PSV = middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity, ΔMCA-PSV = difference in MCA-PSV between twins, MoM = multiples of the median, TAPS = twin anemia polycythemia sequence, wk = week.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Brock, C.O.; Bergh, E.P.; Moise, K.J., Jr; Johnson, A.; Hernandez-Andrade, E.; Lai, D.; Papanna, R. Middle Cerebral Artery Doppler Velocimetry for the Diagnosis of Twin Anemia Polycythemia Sequence: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 1735. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061735

AMA Style

Brock CO, Bergh EP, Moise KJ Jr, Johnson A, Hernandez-Andrade E, Lai D, Papanna R. Middle Cerebral Artery Doppler Velocimetry for the Diagnosis of Twin Anemia Polycythemia Sequence: A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2020; 9(6):1735. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061735

Chicago/Turabian Style

Brock, Clifton O., Eric P. Bergh, Kenneth J. Moise, Jr, Anthony Johnson, Edgar Hernandez-Andrade, Dejian Lai, and Ramesha Papanna. 2020. "Middle Cerebral Artery Doppler Velocimetry for the Diagnosis of Twin Anemia Polycythemia Sequence: A Systematic Review" Journal of Clinical Medicine 9, no. 6: 1735. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061735

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop