Literature DB >> 15843262

Optimal timing for postprandial glucose measurement in pregnant women with diabetes and a non-diabetic pregnant population evaluated by the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS).

Kai J Bühling1, Tessa Winkel, Christiane Wolf, Barbara Kurzidim, Mandana Mahmoudi, Kathrin Wohlfarth, Cornelia Wäscher, Tania Schink, Joachim W Dudenhausen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Using the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS; Medtronic Minimed) for a group of pregnant women with and without glucose intolerance, we attempted to answer the following questions: (1) when does the physiological peak of postprandial glucose occur?; (2) do non-diabetic pregnant women and pregnant women with diabetes have different postprandial glucose profiles?; and (3) what is the optimal time for postprandial glucose measurement rated according to clinical outcome?
METHODS: We included 53 pregnant women in our study. Based on the criteria of the German Diabetes Association (fasting, 5.0 mmol/L; 1-h, 10.0 mmol/L; 2-h, 8.6 mmol/L) we included 13 women with gestational diabetes, four with type 1 diabetes and 36 non-diabetic pregnant (NDP) women. Gestational and type 1 diabetics were classed as one group: pregnancy complicated by diabetes (PCD). Patients with carbohydrate intolerance underwent dietary counseling in accordance with the recommendations of the American Diabetes Association. Patients received a CGMS for use over 72 h. This was calibrated seven times a day with an Accu-Check. The pre- and postprandial glucose levels were documented at 15-min intervals for 3 h from the beginning of each meal. The postprandial data from the three meals were added. The group was divided according to three clinical outcome parameters: mode of delivery, birth weight percentile, and diabetes-associated complications.
RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between groups were found for body mass index, fetal birth weight and oral glucose tolerance test. No significant differences were found for age, parity and gestational age, mode of delivery, and diabetes-associated complications. The sensor provided similar numbers of measurements in both groups (278+/-43 vs. 298+/-73, P = 0.507). The postprandial glucose peak was reached after 82+/-18 min in the non-diabetics vs. 74+/-23 min in the PCD group (not significant). Postprandial glucose values were normally slightly higher in PCD (not significant). We added the postprandial glucose values at each time interval for the three meals for each day. For the sum, there was a significant difference between the measurements at 120 min and at 135 min postprandial (P < 0.05). Dividing the group by clinical outcome showed a significant difference between the postprandial time intervals of 75 min and 105 min (P < 0.05). In addition, the time interval was different from 60 min to 135 min for the mode of delivery and birth weight percentile (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The 120-min interval is too long and has a lower correlation to clinical outcome parameters than earlier measurements. Our findings show that the optimal time for testing is between 45 and 120 min postprandial. Based on our practical experience and dietary recommendations, we would prefer a 60-min interval, because patients can calculate this more easily and can have more freedom to eat the recommended number of snacks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15843262     DOI: 10.1515/JPM.2005.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Perinat Med        ISSN: 0300-5577            Impact factor:   1.901


  16 in total

Review 1.  A tale of two compartments: interstitial versus blood glucose monitoring.

Authors:  Eda Cengiz; William V Tamborlane
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 6.118

Review 2.  Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnancy: new frontiers in clinical applications and research.

Authors:  Joyce F Sung; Masoud Mark Taslimi; Jeffrey C Faig
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2012-11-01

Review 3.  Role of continuous glucose monitoring in the management of diabetic pregnancy.

Authors:  Niranjala M Hewapathirana; Esther O'Sullivan; Helen R Murphy
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.810

4.  Glucose Profiles in Pregnant Women After a Gastric Bypass : Findings from Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Authors:  Camille Bonis; Françoise Lorenzini; Monelle Bertrand; Olivier Parant; Pierre Gourdy; Charlotte Vaurs; Laurent Cazals; Patrick Ritz; Hélène Hanaire
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 4.129

Review 5.  CGM, Pregnancy, and Remote Monitoring.

Authors:  Sarit Polsky; Rachel Garcetti
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 6.118

6.  Relative utility of 1-h Oral Glucose Tolerance Test as a measure of abnormal glucose homeostasis.

Authors:  K J Joshipura; M O Andriankaja; F B Hu; C S Ritchie
Journal:  Diabetes Res Clin Pract       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 5.602

Review 7.  A standard approach to continuous glucose monitor data in pregnancy for the study of fetal growth and infant outcomes.

Authors:  Teri L Hernandez; Linda A Barbour
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2012-12-26       Impact factor: 6.118

8.  Glycaemic profile in the second and third trimesters of normal pregnancy compared to non-pregnant adult females.

Authors:  Aruna Nigam; Neha Varun; Sumedha Sharma; Y P Munjal; Anupam Prakash
Journal:  Obstet Med       Date:  2019-02-02

9.  Timing of peak blood glucose after breakfast meals of different glycemic index in women with gestational diabetes.

Authors:  Jimmy Chun Yu Louie; Tania P Markovic; Glynis P Ross; Deborah Foote; Jennie C Brand-Miller
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2012-12-21       Impact factor: 5.717

10.  Self-monitoring of blood glucose during pregnancy: indications and limitations.

Authors:  Carlos Antonio Negrato; Lenita Zajdenverg
Journal:  Diabetol Metab Syndr       Date:  2012-12-22       Impact factor: 3.320

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.