Brenda Niu1, Vanessa R Lee2, Yvonne W Cheng3, Antonio E Frias2, James M Nicholson4, Aaron B Caughey2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. Electronic address: niub@ohsu.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. 3. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA. 4. Department of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Type A1 gestational diabetes mellitus (A1GDM), also known as diet-controlled gestational diabetes, is associated with an increase in adverse perinatal outcomes such as macrosomia and Erb palsy. However, it remains unclear when to deliver these women because optimal timing of delivery requires balancing neonatal morbidities from early term delivery against the risk of intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD). We sought to determine the optimal gestational age (GA) for women with A1GDM to deliver. STUDY DESIGN: A decision-analytic model was built to compare the outcomes of delivery at 37-41 weeks in a theoretical cohort of 100,000 women with A1GDM. Strategies involving expectant management until a later GA accounted for probabilities of spontaneous delivery, indicated delivery, and IUFD during each week. GA-associated risks of neonatal complications included cerebral palsy, infant death, and Erb palsy. Probabilities were derived from the literature, and total quality-adjusted life years were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were used to investigate the robustness of the baseline assumptions. RESULTS: Our model showed that induction at 38 weeks maximized quality-adjusted life years. Within our cohort, delivery at 38 weeks would prevent 48 stillbirths but lead to 12 more infant deaths compared to 39 weeks. Sensitivity analysis revealed that 38 weeks remains the optimal timing of delivery until IUFD rates fall <0.3-fold of our baseline assumption, at which point expectant management until 39 weeks is optimal. CONCLUSION: By weighing the risks of IUFD against infant deaths and neonatal morbidities from early term delivery, we determined that the ideal GA for women with A1GDM to deliver is 38 weeks.
OBJECTIVE:Type A1 gestational diabetes mellitus (A1GDM), also known as diet-controlled gestational diabetes, is associated with an increase in adverse perinatal outcomes such as macrosomia and Erb palsy. However, it remains unclear when to deliver these women because optimal timing of delivery requires balancing neonatal morbidities from early term delivery against the risk of intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD). We sought to determine the optimal gestational age (GA) for women with A1GDM to deliver. STUDY DESIGN: A decision-analytic model was built to compare the outcomes of delivery at 37-41 weeks in a theoretical cohort of 100,000 women with A1GDM. Strategies involving expectant management until a later GA accounted for probabilities of spontaneous delivery, indicated delivery, and IUFD during each week. GA-associated risks of neonatal complications included cerebral palsy, infantdeath, and Erb palsy. Probabilities were derived from the literature, and total quality-adjusted life years were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were used to investigate the robustness of the baseline assumptions. RESULTS: Our model showed that induction at 38 weeks maximized quality-adjusted life years. Within our cohort, delivery at 38 weeks would prevent 48 stillbirths but lead to 12 more infantdeaths compared to 39 weeks. Sensitivity analysis revealed that 38 weeks remains the optimal timing of delivery until IUFD rates fall <0.3-fold of our baseline assumption, at which point expectant management until 39 weeks is optimal. CONCLUSION: By weighing the risks of IUFD against infantdeaths and neonatal morbidities from early term delivery, we determined that the ideal GA for women with A1GDM to deliver is 38 weeks.
Authors: Margaret A Harper; Robert P Byington; Mark A Espeland; Michelle Naughton; Robert Meyer; Kathy Lane Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Aaron B Caughey; James M Nicholson; Yvonne W Cheng; Deirdre J Lyell; A Eugene Washington Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Yvonne W Cheng; James M Nicholson; Sanae Nakagawa; Tim A Bruckner; A Eugene Washington; Aaron B Caughey Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Catherine Takacs Witkop; Donna Neale; Lisa M Wilson; Eric B Bass; Wanda K Nicholson Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Mark B Landon; Catherine Y Spong; Elizabeth Thom; Marshall W Carpenter; Susan M Ramin; Brian Casey; Ronald J Wapner; Michael W Varner; Dwight J Rouse; John M Thorp; Anthony Sciscione; Patrick Catalano; Margaret Harper; George Saade; Kristine Y Lain; Yoram Sorokin; Alan M Peaceman; Jorge E Tolosa; Garland B Anderson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Tammy Nguyen; Saunders Lin; Ahmed F Pantho; Belinda M Kohl-Thomas; Madhava R Beeram; David C Zawieja; Thomas J Kuehl; M Nasir Uddin Journal: Mol Cell Biochem Date: 2015-04-12 Impact factor: 3.396