AIMS: To evaluate the maternal and neonatal complications rates of mild gestational hyperglycaemia (MGH) compared to a control group in France. METHODS: A systematic screening by a 50-g glucose challenge test was offered to all women between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation in 15 maternity units. If the 50-g glucose challenge test was > or = 7.2 mmol/l, a 100-g 3-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed. MGH (n = 131) was defined by one abnormal value on the 3-h OGTT (Carpenter and Coustan criteria). The control group (n = 108) was defined by a 50-g glucose challenge test below 7.2 mmol/l. Women with MGH received no treatment or specific advice during the pregnancy. Large for gestational age (LGA) was defined by a birth weight of at least the 90th percentile on French standard growth curves. RESULTS: Women with MGH were older than the controls (28.8 (5.8) vs. 27.0 (5.2); P < 0.05) and had a higher body mass index (24.8 (4.8) vs. 23.0 (3.9); P < 0.01). The rate of pregnancy-induced hypertension and Caesarean section were not different between the MGH and control group. The rate of LGA was significantly higher in the MGH group than the control group (22.1% vs. 11.4%; P < 0.05). After adjustment for confounding factors of macrosomia (pre-pregnancy body mass index > 27, maternal age > 35, multiparity and educational level), there was a persistent relationship between LGA and MGH (odds ratio 2.50; 95% confidence interval (1.16-5.40); P < 0.05). MGH was more frequently associated with adverse maternal and fetal outcome than in the controls (53.4% vs. 28.7%; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested that the increased rate of adverse maternal and fetal outcome, especially LGA, was associated with untreated mild gestational hyperglycaemia women compared to a control group. This link to lower degrees of hyperglycaemia during pregnancy is independent of confounding factors.
AIMS: To evaluate the maternal and neonatal complications rates of mild gestational hyperglycaemia (MGH) compared to a control group in France. METHODS: A systematic screening by a 50-g glucose challenge test was offered to all women between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation in 15 maternity units. If the 50-g glucose challenge test was > or = 7.2 mmol/l, a 100-g 3-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed. MGH (n = 131) was defined by one abnormal value on the 3-h OGTT (Carpenter and Coustan criteria). The control group (n = 108) was defined by a 50-g glucose challenge test below 7.2 mmol/l. Women with MGH received no treatment or specific advice during the pregnancy. Large for gestational age (LGA) was defined by a birth weight of at least the 90th percentile on French standard growth curves. RESULTS:Women with MGH were older than the controls (28.8 (5.8) vs. 27.0 (5.2); P < 0.05) and had a higher body mass index (24.8 (4.8) vs. 23.0 (3.9); P < 0.01). The rate of pregnancy-induced hypertension and Caesarean section were not different between the MGH and control group. The rate of LGA was significantly higher in the MGH group than the control group (22.1% vs. 11.4%; P < 0.05). After adjustment for confounding factors of macrosomia (pre-pregnancy body mass index > 27, maternal age > 35, multiparity and educational level), there was a persistent relationship between LGA and MGH (odds ratio 2.50; 95% confidence interval (1.16-5.40); P < 0.05). MGH was more frequently associated with adverse maternal and fetal outcome than in the controls (53.4% vs. 28.7%; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested that the increased rate of adverse maternal and fetal outcome, especially LGA, was associated with untreated mild gestational hyperglycaemiawomen compared to a control group. This link to lower degrees of hyperglycaemia during pregnancy is independent of confounding factors.
Authors: Boyd E Metzger; Steven G Gabbe; Bengt Persson; Thomas A Buchanan; Patrick A Catalano; Peter Damm; Alan R Dyer; Alberto de Leiva; Moshe Hod; John L Kitzmiler; Lynn P Lowe; H David McIntyre; Jeremy J N Oats; Yasue Omori; Maria Ines Schmidt Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Zuelma A Contreras; Beate Ritz; Jasveer Virk; Myles Cockburn; Julia E Heck Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 2.532