Gestational Diabetes – Major New Clinically Relevant Aspects

Introduction The birth of a large for gestational age (LGA) infant is a significant risk factor for birth complications and maternal morbidity and an even higher risk factor for offspring obesity, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease in later life. Relevant factors affecting the risk of delivering an LGA infant are maternal pre-gravid obesity, excessive gestational weight gain exceeding the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and diabetes in pregnancy. We aimed to determine what matters most in terms of the risk of fetal overgrowth. Materials and Methods We performed a database analysis of 12 701 singleton term deliveries documented in our university hospital birth registry from 2003 to 2014. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the adjusted odds ratios. Results Excessive weight gain had the strongest impact on LGA (OR: 1.249 [95% CI: 1.018 – 1.533]) compared to maternal pre-gravid body mass index (BMI) (OR: 1.083 [95% CI: 1.066 – 1.099]) and diabetes (OR: 1.315 [95% CI: 0.997 – 1.734]). Keeping gestational weight gain within the recommendations of the IOM resulted in a risk reduction for LGA of 20% (OR: 0.801 [95% CI: 0.652 – 0.982]). The risk for LGA increases by 6.9% with each kg weight gain. Normal weight women (BMI 18.5 – 24.9 kg/m2) and moderately overweight women (BMI 25 – 29.9 kg/m2) showed the highest increase in LGA rates per kg weight gain during pregnancy (OR: 1.078 [95% CI: 1.052 – 1.104] and OR: 1.058 [95% CI: 1.026 – 1.09], resp.). Only in underweight (< 18.5 kg/m2) and normal weight women the risk of LGA birth is strongly influenced by diabetes (OR 11.818 [95% CI: 1.156–120.782] and 1.564 [95% CI: 1.013–2.415]). Conclusion Excessive weight gain is particularly important for non-obese women. These women are therefore a target cohort for intervention, as each prevented additional kilogram weight gain reduces the risk of LGA by more than 5%.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gestational Weight Gain Particularly Affects the Risk of Large for Gestational Age Infants in Non-obese Mothers

Weschenfelder

Schleußner

Groten

2019

“…In principle, however, this should be considered starting at week 37 + 0 of pregnancy, particularly in the case of insulin-dependent diabetes and a foetal weight ≥ 95th percentile. The authors additionally recommend a primary section in the case of an estimated weight of ≥ 4500 g 26 , 27 , 28 . If there is no gestational diabetes, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends a preventive section starting at 5000 g. Induction is not recommended 1 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Perzentile. Die Autoren empfehlen zudem eine primäre Sectio bei einem geschätzten Gewicht ≥ 4500 g 26 , 27 , 28 . Sofern kein Gestationsdiabetes vorliegt, empfiehlt das American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists eine präventive Sectio ab 5000 g. Eine Einleitung wird nicht empfohlen 1 .…”

Section: Diskussionunclassified

Influence of Foetal Macrosomia on the Neonatal and Maternal Birth Outcome

Pahlitzsch

Hanne

Henrich

et al. 2019

Introduction Foetal macrosomia is associated with various obstetrical complications and is a common reason for inductions and primary or secondary Caesarean sections. The objective of this study is the generation of descriptive data on the mode of delivery and on maternal and foetal complications in the case of foetal macrosomia. The causes and consequences of foetal macrosomia as well as the rate of shoulder dystocia are examined in relation to the severity of the macrosomia. Patients The study investigated all singleton births ≥ 37 + 0 weeks of pregnancy with a birth weight ≥ 4000 g at the Charité University Medicine Berlin (Campus Mitte 2001 – 2017, Campus Virchow Klinikum 2014 – 2017). Results 2277 consecutive newborns (birth weight 4000 – 4499 g [88%], 4500 – 4999 g [11%], ≥ 5000 g [1%]) were included. Maternal obesity and gestational diabetes were more common in the case of newborns weighing ≥ 4500 g than newborns weighing 4000 – 4499 g (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001). Women with newborns ≥ 5000 g were more often ≥ 40 years of age (p = 0.020) and multipara (p = 0.025). The mode of delivery was spontaneous in 60% of cases, vaginal-surgical in 9%, per primary section in 14% and per secondary section in 17%. With a birth weight ≥ 4500 g, a vaginal delivery was more rare (p < 0.001) and the rate of secondary sections was increased (p = 0.011). Women with newborns ≥ 4500 g suffered increased blood loss more frequently (p = 0.029). There was no significant difference with regard to the rate of episiotomies or serious birth injuries. Shoulder dystocia occurred more frequently at a birth weight of ≥ 4500 g (5 vs. 0.9%, p = 0.000). Perinatal acidosis occurred in 2% of newborns without significant differences between the groups. Newborns ≥ 4500 g were transferred to neonatology more frequently (p < 0.001). Conclusion An increased birth weight is associated with an increased maternal risk and an increased rate of primary and secondary sections as well as shoulder dystocia; no differences in the perinatal outcome between newborns with a birth weight of 4000 – 4499 g and ≥ 4500 g were seen. In our collective, a comparably low incidence of shoulder dystocia was seen. In the literature, the frequency is indicated with a large range (1.9 – 10% at 4000 – 4499 g, 2.5 – 20% at 4500 – 5000 g and 10 – 20% at ≥ 5000 g). One possible cause for the low rate could be the equally low prevalence of gestational diabetes in our collective. A risk stratification of the pregnant women (e.g. avoidance of vacuum extraction, taking gestational diabetes into account during delivery planning) is crucial. If macrosomia is presumed, it is recommended that delivery take place at a perinatal centre in the presence of a specialist physician, due to the increased incidence of foetal and maternal complications.

“…The determination of fetal growth parameters and the use of these fetal growth parameters to guide treatment is an established approach when treating women with gestational diabetes 14 . The current recommendations on managing the treatment of pregnant women with manifest pregestational DM include fetal biometry based on ultrasound examinations carried out every 2 – 4 weeks from the 24th week of gestation (GW) in addition to standard diabetic monitoring of the maternal metabolism 15 , 27 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In der Therapie von Frauen mit Gestationsdiabetes ist die Bestimmung der fetalen Wachstumsparameter und die Orientierung der Therapieführung am fetalen Wachstum etabliert 14 . Im Therapiemanagement einer Schwangerschaft mit prägravide manifestem DM werden aktuell ab der 24.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Evaluation of Treatment Strategies to Manage Diabetes Mellitus in Pregnancy: Use of Fetal Sonography Compared to Monitoring of Maternal Blood Glucose Alone

Schütze

Groten

Schleußner

et al. 2019

Introduction When planning the treatment of women with gestational diabetes, the current standard approach also takes fetal growth development into account. The treatment of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) used to be based exclusively on maternal blood glucose values. This study investigated the impact of including fetal growth parameters in the monitoring of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Patients/Method 199 pregnant women with type 1 DM were included in a cohort study. The patient population was divided into two study cohorts. In the mBG cohort (n = 94; investigation period: 1994 – 2005) treatment was monitored using only maternal blood glucose (mBG) values; the aim was to achieve standard target glucose values (mean BG < 5.5 mmol/l, postprandial: at 1 h < 7.7 mmol/l, at 2 h < 6.6 mmol/l). In the fUS collective (n = 101, investigation period: 2006 – 2014) fetal growth parameters were additionally included when monitoring treatment from the 22nd week of gestation, and maternal target glucose values were then individually adjusted to take account of fetal growth. This study aimed to investigate the impact of these two different ways of monitoring treatment on perinatal and peripartum outcomes. Results 91.4% of all patients were normoglycemic at the time of delivery (HbA1c < 6.7%); 58.9% of patients achieved strict normoglycemia (HbA1c < 5.7%). No differences were found between the two study cohorts (fUS vs. mBG: HbA1c < 6.7%: 93.9 vs. 88.4%, n. s.; mean blood glucose (BG): 5.4 ± 0.6 to 6.6 ± 1.1 vs. 5.9 ± 0.7 to 7.4 ± 1.9 mmol/l, n. s.). Patients from the fUS cohort required significantly lower weight-adjusted maximum insulin doses (0.9 ± 0.3 vs. 1.0 ± 0.4 IE/kg bodyweight, p < 0.05). Pregnancy complications occurred significantly less often in the fUS cohort (preeclampsia: 7.1 vs. 20.9%, p = 0.01; premature labor: 4.0 vs. 23.3%, p < 0.001; cervical insufficiency: 0.0 vs. 11.6%, p = 0.001), and there were significantly fewer cases with neonatal hyperbilirubinemia (19.2 vs. 40.7%, p = 0.001). There was no difference in the rates of LGA infants between the two cohorts (21.2 vs. 24.4%, n. s.). Conclusion Using maternal blood glucose values combined with fetal growth parameters to monitor DM treatment allows therapeutic interventions to be individualized and reduces the risk of maternal and infant morbidity. The metabolism of patients in the fUS cohort was significantly more stable and there were fewer variations in glucose values. It is possible that the detected benefits are due to this metabolic stabilization.