BACKGROUND: Pregnant women commonly receive screening for gestational diabetes mellitus by use of a 50 g glucose challenge test, followed by a diagnostic oral glucose tolerance test for those whose glucose challenge test result is abnormal. Although women with gestational diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, it is not known whether mild glucose intolerance during pregnancy is also associated with cardiovascular disease. Thus, we sought to determine whether pregnant women with an abnormal glucose challenge test result but without gestational diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study that included all women in Ontario aged 20-49 years with live deliveries between April 1994 and March 1998. We excluded women with pregestational diabetes. The population was stratified into 3 cohorts: women with gestational diabetes (n = 13,888); women who received an antepartum oral glucose tolerance test (suggestive of an abnormal result of the glucose challenge test) but who did not have gestational diabetes (n = 71,831); and women who did not receive an oral glucose tolerance test (suggestive of a normal result of the glucose challenge test) (n = 349,977). The primary outcome was cardiovascular disease (admission to hospital for acute myocardial infarction, coronary bypass, coronary angioplasty, stroke or carotid endarterectomy). RESULTS: Compared with women who did not receive an oral glucose tolerance test, women with gestational diabetes and women who received an oral glucose tolerance test but did not have gestational diabetes had a higher risk of cardiovascular disease over 12.3 years of median follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for women with gestational diabetes 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30-2.13, p < 0.001; adjusted HR for those with an oral glucose test but not gestational diabetes 1.19, 95% CI 1.02-1.39, p = 0.03). INTERPRETATION: Mild glucose intolerance in pregnancy may be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.
BACKGROUND: Pregnant women commonly receive screening for gestational diabetes mellitus by use of a 50 g glucose challenge test, followed by a diagnostic oral glucose tolerance test for those whose glucose challenge test result is abnormal. Although women with gestational diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, it is not known whether mild glucose intolerance during pregnancy is also associated with cardiovascular disease. Thus, we sought to determine whether pregnant women with an abnormal glucose challenge test result but without gestational diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study that included all women in Ontario aged 20-49 years with live deliveries between April 1994 and March 1998. We excluded women with pregestational diabetes. The population was stratified into 3 cohorts: women with gestational diabetes (n = 13,888); women who received an antepartum oral glucose tolerance test (suggestive of an abnormal result of the glucose challenge test) but who did not have gestational diabetes (n = 71,831); and women who did not receive an oral glucose tolerance test (suggestive of a normal result of the glucose challenge test) (n = 349,977). The primary outcome was cardiovascular disease (admission to hospital for acute myocardial infarction, coronary bypass, coronary angioplasty, stroke or carotid endarterectomy). RESULTS: Compared with women who did not receive an oral glucose tolerance test, women with gestational diabetes and women who received an oral glucose tolerance test but did not have gestational diabetes had a higher risk of cardiovascular disease over 12.3 years of median follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for women with gestational diabetes 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30-2.13, p < 0.001; adjusted HR for those with an oral glucose test but not gestational diabetes 1.19, 95% CI 1.02-1.39, p = 0.03). INTERPRETATION: Mild glucose intolerance in pregnancy may be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.
Authors: Ravi Retnakaran; Bernard Zinman; Philip W Connelly; Mathew Sermer; Anthony J G Hanley Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Shannon M Heitritter; Caren G Solomon; Gary F Mitchell; Nadia Skali-Ounis; Ellen W Seely Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2005-04-19 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: James B Meigs; Christopher J O'donnell; Geoffrey H Tofler; Emelia J Benjamin; Caroline S Fox; Izabela Lipinska; David M Nathan; Lisa M Sullivan; Ralph B D'Agostino; Peter W F Wilson Journal: Diabetes Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Ravi Retnakaran; Ying Qi; Mathew Sermer; Philip W Connelly; Anthony J G Hanley; Bernard Zinman Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2008-10-21 Impact factor: 3.478
Authors: Howard Berger; Joan Crane; Dan Farine; Anthony Armson; Sandra De La Ronde; Lisa Keenan-Lindsay; Line Leduc; Gregory Reid; John Van Aerde Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Can Date: 2002-11
Authors: Ravi Retnakaran; Ying Qi; Mathew Sermer; Philip W Connelly; Bernard Zinman; Anthony J G Hanley Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Mary Lou Thompson; Cande V Ananth; Vincent W V Jaddoe; Raymond S Miller; Michelle A Williams Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2014-05-19 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: Andrew S Bomback; Yelena Rekhtman; Adam T Whaley-Connell; Abhijit V Kshirsagar; James R Sowers; Shu-Cheng Chen; Suying Li; Kavitha M Chinnaiyan; George L Bakris; Peter A McCullough Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-08-31 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Ravi Retnakaran; Ying Qi; Philip W Connelly; Mathew Sermer; Bernard Zinman; Anthony J G Hanley Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2009-11-19 Impact factor: 5.958