R Klara Feldman1, Ryan S Tieu, Lyn Yasumura. 1. Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Permanente at Baldwin Park, Montebello, and Kaiser Permanente Baldwin Park Medical Center, Baldwin Park, and the Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente, Pasadena, California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether one-step gestational diabetes screening recommended by The International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) is associated with better maternal, perinatal, or neonatal outcomes than the two-step Carpenter-Coustan screening. METHODS: In this before-after retrospective cohort study conducted between July 1, 2010, and December 31, 2013, we compared Carpenter-Coustan and IADPSG screening in patients with singleton pregnancies. All patients diagnosed with gestational diabetes received intensive teaching, home glucose monitoring, and medications as indicated. The primary outcome was the rate of large-for-gestational-age neonates. Secondary outcome measures were macrosomia (greater than 4,000 g), primary cesarean delivery, neonatal intensive care unit admission, preterm delivery, preeclampsia, and hyperbilirubinemia. We determined that a sample size of 2,782 per group was sufficient to detect a 2% difference in the primary outcome between groups with 80% power assuming a 10% incidence in the before group. The groups were compared using Fisher exact test for proportions and a χ test for odds ratios. RESULTS: In the before (Carpenter-Coustan) group, 513 (17%) of the 2,972 patients were diagnosed with gestational diabetes, and in the after (IADPSG) group, 847 (27%) of the 3,094 patients were so diagnosed (P<.001). There was no significant difference in rates of large for gestational age, 10% and 9%, respectively (P=.25). The IADPSG group had a significantly higher primary cesarean delivery rate-16% compared with 20% (P<.001), but there were no significant differences in any other pregnancy outcomes. CONCLUSION: Although one-step screening was associated with more patients being treated for gestational diabetes, it was not associated with a decrease in large-for-gestational-age or macrosomic neonates but was associated with an increased rate of primary cesarean delivery. Our results did not support the IADPSG-recommended screening protocol.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether one-step gestational diabetes screening recommended by The International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) is associated with better maternal, perinatal, or neonatal outcomes than the two-step Carpenter-Coustan screening. METHODS: In this before-after retrospective cohort study conducted between July 1, 2010, and December 31, 2013, we compared Carpenter-Coustan and IADPSG screening in patients with singleton pregnancies. All patients diagnosed with gestational diabetes received intensive teaching, home glucose monitoring, and medications as indicated. The primary outcome was the rate of large-for-gestational-age neonates. Secondary outcome measures were macrosomia (greater than 4,000 g), primary cesarean delivery, neonatal intensive care unit admission, preterm delivery, preeclampsia, and hyperbilirubinemia. We determined that a sample size of 2,782 per group was sufficient to detect a 2% difference in the primary outcome between groups with 80% power assuming a 10% incidence in the before group. The groups were compared using Fisher exact test for proportions and a χ test for odds ratios. RESULTS: In the before (Carpenter-Coustan) group, 513 (17%) of the 2,972 patients were diagnosed with gestational diabetes, and in the after (IADPSG) group, 847 (27%) of the 3,094 patients were so diagnosed (P<.001). There was no significant difference in rates of large for gestational age, 10% and 9%, respectively (P=.25). The IADPSG group had a significantly higher primary cesarean delivery rate-16% compared with 20% (P<.001), but there were no significant differences in any other pregnancy outcomes. CONCLUSION: Although one-step screening was associated with more patients being treated for gestational diabetes, it was not associated with a decrease in large-for-gestational-age or macrosomic neonates but was associated with an increased rate of primary cesarean delivery. Our results did not support the IADPSG-recommended screening protocol.
Authors: Thaddeus P Waters; Alan R Dyer; Denise M Scholtens; Sharon L Dooley; Elaine Herer; Lynn P Lowe; Jeremy J N Oats; Bengt Persson; David A Sacks; Boyd E Metzger; Patrick M Catalano Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Kaleab Z Abebe; Christina Scifres; Hyagriv N Simhan; Nancy Day; Patrick Catalano; Lisa M Bodnar; Tina Costacou; Deanna Matthew; Alexandra Illes; Steven Orris; Jessica Duell; Kathleen Ly; Esa M Davis Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-08-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Suneet P Chauhan; Madeline Murguia Rice; William A Grobman; Jennifer Bailit; Uma M Reddy; Ronald J Wapner; Michael W Varner; John M Thorp; Kenneth J Leveno; Steve N Caritis; Mona Prasad; Alan T N Tita; George Saade; Yoram Sorokin; Dwight J Rouse; Jorge E Tolosa Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Kimberly K Vesco; Andrea J Sharma; Joanna Bulkley; Terry Kimes; William M Callaghan; Lucinda J England; Mark C Hornbrook Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2019-05-04 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Teresa A Hillier; Kathryn L Pedula; Keith K Ogasawara; Kimberly K Vesco; Caryn E S Oshiro; Suzanne L Lubarsky; Jan Van Marter Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Rafael B Gelaleti; Débora C Damasceno; Daisy M F Salvadori; Iracema M P Calderon; Roberto A A Costa; Fernanda Piculo; David C Martins; Marilza V C Rudge Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2016-10-13