Impact of gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosed during the third trimester on pregnancy outcomes: a case-control study.
Caesarean delivery
Gestational diabetes mellitus
International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group
Japan
Late pregnancy
Third trimester
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Mar 2021
24 Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
06
10
2020
accepted:
17
03
2021
entrez:
25
3
2021
pubmed:
26
3
2021
medline:
27
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In 2010, the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) proposed new criteria indicating that gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) can be diagnosed if the fasting threshold of ≤92 mg/dL, 1-h threshold of ≤180 mg/dL, or 2-h threshold of ≤153 mg/dL are exceeded during the 75-g 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) performed at 24-28 weeks of gestation. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends using the proposed diagnostic threshold values of the IADPSG to diagnose GDM; however, it does not limit the timing of the 75-g OGTT. Since 2010 in Japan, GDM has been diagnosed using the same criteria as that proposed by the WHO. However, neither the JSOG nor the WHO has provided any evidence that it is appropriate to use a threshold beyond the range recommended by the IADPSG. This was a single-centre retrospective study based on the medical records and delivery registry database of our centre. We included women who underwent a 50-g glucose challenge test (GCT) with results < 140 mg/dL at 24-28 weeks of gestation and subsequently underwent a 75-g OGTT after 29 weeks of gestation with abnormal glucose tolerance suspected based on clinical findings. The reference values for the 75-g OGTT followed the IADPSG criteria. Subjects were classified into the normal glucose tolerance (NGT) group and the GDM group. The type of delivery and neonatal outcomes of the two groups were compared. A multivariable analysis was performed to match the backgrounds of both groups. In total, the NGT and GDM group comprised 189 and 49 women, respectively. Emergency caesarean delivery rates were similar in the GDM and NGT groups (10.6 and 12.2%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-3.64; p = 0.74); however, the elective caesarean delivery rate was higher in the GDM group than in the NGT group (16.3 and 5.3%, respectively, adjusted OR, 3.60; 95% CI, 1.27-10.19; p = 0.01). No significant differences were observed in other maternal and neonatal outcomes between both groups. Although a diagnosis of GDM during the third trimester does not improve pregnancy outcomes, it increases the elective caesarean delivery rate.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In 2010, the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) proposed new criteria indicating that gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) can be diagnosed if the fasting threshold of ≤92 mg/dL, 1-h threshold of ≤180 mg/dL, or 2-h threshold of ≤153 mg/dL are exceeded during the 75-g 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) performed at 24-28 weeks of gestation. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends using the proposed diagnostic threshold values of the IADPSG to diagnose GDM; however, it does not limit the timing of the 75-g OGTT. Since 2010 in Japan, GDM has been diagnosed using the same criteria as that proposed by the WHO. However, neither the JSOG nor the WHO has provided any evidence that it is appropriate to use a threshold beyond the range recommended by the IADPSG.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a single-centre retrospective study based on the medical records and delivery registry database of our centre. We included women who underwent a 50-g glucose challenge test (GCT) with results < 140 mg/dL at 24-28 weeks of gestation and subsequently underwent a 75-g OGTT after 29 weeks of gestation with abnormal glucose tolerance suspected based on clinical findings. The reference values for the 75-g OGTT followed the IADPSG criteria. Subjects were classified into the normal glucose tolerance (NGT) group and the GDM group. The type of delivery and neonatal outcomes of the two groups were compared. A multivariable analysis was performed to match the backgrounds of both groups.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, the NGT and GDM group comprised 189 and 49 women, respectively. Emergency caesarean delivery rates were similar in the GDM and NGT groups (10.6 and 12.2%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-3.64; p = 0.74); however, the elective caesarean delivery rate was higher in the GDM group than in the NGT group (16.3 and 5.3%, respectively, adjusted OR, 3.60; 95% CI, 1.27-10.19; p = 0.01). No significant differences were observed in other maternal and neonatal outcomes between both groups.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Although a diagnosis of GDM during the third trimester does not improve pregnancy outcomes, it increases the elective caesarean delivery rate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33761893
doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03730-8
pii: 10.1186/s12884-021-03730-8
pmc: PMC7992332
doi:
Substances chimiques
Blood Glucose
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
246Références
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jun 16;352(24):2477-86
pubmed: 15951574
Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Dec;66(6):762-8
pubmed: 4069477
BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2020 Jul;8(1):
pubmed: 32699112
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019 Oct;147(1):108-114
pubmed: 31304595
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019 Dec 18;:1-5
pubmed: 31851555
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Mar;202(3):255.e1-7
pubmed: 20207245
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1999 Jul;81(1):F10-4
pubmed: 10375355
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Dec;173(6):1753-8
pubmed: 8610757
Pediatr Res. 1985 Mar;19(3):253-67
pubmed: 3885150
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Feb;129(2):273-280
pubmed: 28079773
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Nov;191(5):1655-60
pubmed: 15547538
Dev Neuropsychol. 2009;34(6):762-79
pubmed: 20183732
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Apr;170(4):1036-46; discussion 1046-7
pubmed: 8166187
Diabetes. 1991 Dec;40 Suppl 2:74-8
pubmed: 1748270
N Engl J Med. 2008 May 8;358(19):1991-2002
pubmed: 18463375
CMAJ. 2009 Sep 15;181(6-7):371-6
pubmed: 19703913
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017 Apr;30(8):917-921
pubmed: 27186963
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Aug;179(2):476-80
pubmed: 9731856
Diabetes Care. 2010 Mar;33(3):676-82
pubmed: 20190296
Lancet. 2009 May 23;373(9677):1773-9
pubmed: 19465232
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2019 Apr;45(4):766-786
pubmed: 30675969
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2007 Aug;77(2):263-8
pubmed: 17275121
J Diabetes Investig. 2019 Nov;10(6):1576-1585
pubmed: 30897272
Pediatr Endocrinol Rev. 2005 Dec;3(2):104-13
pubmed: 16361984
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1988 Feb;26(1):65-73
pubmed: 2892741