Significant risk of repeat adverse outcomes in recurrent gestational diabetes pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study.
Gestational diabetes mellitus
Large for gestational age
Pregnancy
Small for gestational age
Journal
Clinical diabetes and endocrinology
ISSN: 2055-8260
Titre abrégé: Clin Diabetes Endocrinol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101669619
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Mar 2023
15 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
04
11
2022
accepted:
08
03
2023
entrez:
16
3
2023
pubmed:
17
3
2023
medline:
17
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The risk of adverse outcomes in recurrent GDM pregnancy has not been well documented, particularly in women who have already had an adverse outcome. The aim of this study was to compare the risk of recurrent adverse delivery outcome (ADO) or adverse neonatal outcome (ANO) between consecutive gestational diabetes (GDM) pregnancies. In this retrospective study of 424 pairs of consecutive ("index" and "subsequent") GDM pregnancies, we compared the risk of ADO (instrumental delivery, emergency Caesarean section) and ANO (large for gestational age (LGA and small for gestational age (SGA)) in women with and without a history of adverse outcome in their index pregnancy. Subsequent pregnancies had higher rates of elective Caesarean (30.4% vs 17.0%, p < 0.001) and lower rates of instrumental delivery (5% vs 13.9%, p < 0.001), emergency Caesarean (7.1% vs 16.3%, p < 0.001) and vaginal delivery (62.3% vs 66.3%, p = 0.01). Index pregnancy adverse outcome was associated with a higher risk of repeat outcome: RR 3.09 (95%CI:1.30,7.34) for instrumental delivery, RR 2.20 (95%CI:1.06,4.61) for emergency Caesarean, RR 4.55 (95%CI:3.03,6.82) for LGA, and RR 5.01 (95%CI:2.73,9.22) for SGA). The greatest risk factor for subsequent LGA (RR 3.13 (95%CI:2.20,4.47)) or SGA (RR 4.71 (95%CI:2.66,8.36)) was having that outcome in the index pregnancy. A history of an adverse outcome is a powerful predictor of the same outcome in the subsequent GDM pregnancy. These high-risk women may warrant more directed management over routine GDM care such as altered glucose targets or increased frequency of ultrasound assessment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The risk of adverse outcomes in recurrent GDM pregnancy has not been well documented, particularly in women who have already had an adverse outcome. The aim of this study was to compare the risk of recurrent adverse delivery outcome (ADO) or adverse neonatal outcome (ANO) between consecutive gestational diabetes (GDM) pregnancies.
METHODS
METHODS
In this retrospective study of 424 pairs of consecutive ("index" and "subsequent") GDM pregnancies, we compared the risk of ADO (instrumental delivery, emergency Caesarean section) and ANO (large for gestational age (LGA and small for gestational age (SGA)) in women with and without a history of adverse outcome in their index pregnancy.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Subsequent pregnancies had higher rates of elective Caesarean (30.4% vs 17.0%, p < 0.001) and lower rates of instrumental delivery (5% vs 13.9%, p < 0.001), emergency Caesarean (7.1% vs 16.3%, p < 0.001) and vaginal delivery (62.3% vs 66.3%, p = 0.01). Index pregnancy adverse outcome was associated with a higher risk of repeat outcome: RR 3.09 (95%CI:1.30,7.34) for instrumental delivery, RR 2.20 (95%CI:1.06,4.61) for emergency Caesarean, RR 4.55 (95%CI:3.03,6.82) for LGA, and RR 5.01 (95%CI:2.73,9.22) for SGA). The greatest risk factor for subsequent LGA (RR 3.13 (95%CI:2.20,4.47)) or SGA (RR 4.71 (95%CI:2.66,8.36)) was having that outcome in the index pregnancy.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
A history of an adverse outcome is a powerful predictor of the same outcome in the subsequent GDM pregnancy. These high-risk women may warrant more directed management over routine GDM care such as altered glucose targets or increased frequency of ultrasound assessment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36922876
doi: 10.1186/s40842-023-00149-2
pii: 10.1186/s40842-023-00149-2
pmc: PMC10015739
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2Informations de copyright
© 2023. Crown.
Références
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Aug;37(6):723-726
pubmed: 28325085
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Jun;178(6):1321-32
pubmed: 9662318
Diabetes Care. 2019 May;42(5):718-726
pubmed: 31010942
Diabetes Care. 2012 Apr;35(4):780-6
pubmed: 22357187
PLoS One. 2016 May 04;11(5):e0154812
pubmed: 27145132
Diabetes. 1991 Dec;40 Suppl 2:197-201
pubmed: 1748259
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2004 Jan;15(1):56-60
pubmed: 15101613
BJOG. 2014 Aug;121(9):1080-8; discussion 1089
pubmed: 24702952
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018 Oct;298(4):725-730
pubmed: 30132116
Prev Chronic Dis. 2015 Dec 10;12:E218
pubmed: 26652218
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2018 Aug;44(8):1391-1396
pubmed: 29845694
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001 Dec;75(3):221-8
pubmed: 11728481
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 May;210(5):431.e1-14
pubmed: 24361790
Diabetes Care. 2001 Apr;24(4):659-62
pubmed: 11315827
Diabetes Care. 1996 Dec;19(12):1348-50
pubmed: 8941462
Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Nov;80(5):755-8
pubmed: 1407910
Diabetes Care. 2007 May;30(5):1314-9
pubmed: 17290037
BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2017 Sep 7;5(1):e000445
pubmed: 28948028
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Oct;179(4):1038-42
pubmed: 9790394