Gestational diabetes: a review of the current literature and guidelines.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, AZ Middelheim, Antwerpen, Belgium.
Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey (Impact Factor: 2.36). 03/2007; 62(2):125-36. DOI: 10.1097/01.ogx.0000253303.92229.59
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Despite large numbers of original research studies spanning 4 decades there is still no consensus on the subject of gestational diabetes. Should all pregnant women be screened or only those with risk factors? Or is it safe not to screen at all? Which screening test and which diagnostic test are the most reliable? Which cutoff values should we use? What are the risks involved for mother and baby and can treatment improve outcome? What is the connection between gestational diabetes and diabetes mellitus type II? Are there disadvantages to screening? A review of relevant articles shows that definitive answers to these questions are not yet available. There is no gold standard screening test and no threshold glucose value above which complications are markedly increased. On the contrary, there appears to be a continuum of slowly increasing risks with rising blood glucose values, where it seems difficult to draw a clear line between pathology and physiology. Moreover, treatment has thus far not been shown to significantly improve outcome. There seems to be an indistinct area between the diagnosis of gestational diabetes and diabetes mellitus type II, where women with risk factors for one are also predisposed to develop the other, thereby confusing the diagnosis. Finally, the disadvantages to diagnosing and treating women without a clearly proven benefit seem to be significant. Therefore it seems defensible to suspend all screening and treatment for gestational diabetes, or at least significantly raise the threshold for making a positive diagnosis and initiating treatment, until further research has proven a clear benefit. TARGET AUDIENCE: Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Family Physicians. LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After completion of this article, the reader should be able to summarize that there is still no worldwide consensus on the diagnosis, management, and adverse effects of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM); explain that all methods of screening vary in sensitivity and depend on very strict preparations for screening; state that there is no agreement on ideal levels of blood glucose to prevent untoward effects; and recall that there are two very large prospective studies that clarify the dark waters and that we should await their results.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The carbohydrate 'fuel' metabolism in a pregnant woman may have a long-term impact on the development of her offspring ('fuel-mediated teratogenesis' hypothesis) including in utero exposure to maternal hyperglycaemia leading to fetal hyperinsulinaemia, and the consequent increase in fetal fat cells. Therefore, a feed-forward loop can exist of rising adiposity and hyperinsulinaemia throughout childhood, perhaps leading to obesity and diabetes in later life. There is a need for prospective examination of body fat distribution in children born to mothers with different glycaemic levels to understand the plausible association between glucose metabolism and future risk of diabetes in offspring. The hypothesis is that maternal glucose levels in pregnant women are related to skinfold thickness in their infants.
    BMJ Open 06/2014; 4(6):e005417. · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate the influence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) on maternal and neonatal outcomes in twin pregnancies. A retrospective population-based study was conducted, comparing maternal and neonatal outcome in women carrying twins with and without GDM. Deliveries occurred in a tertiary medical center between the years 1988 and 2010. Multivariable analysis was used to control for confounders. The study population included 4,428 twin pregnancies, of these 341 (7.7 %) were complicated with GDM. Twin pregnancies complicated with GDM had higher rates of fertility treatment, chronic hypertension, preeclampsia and cesarean deliveries (CD). Nevertheless, using a multivariable analysis, with CD as the outcome variable, controlling for confounders such as maternal age, fertility treatments and hypertensive disorders, GDM in twins was not found to be an independent risk factor for CD (adjusted OR = 1.8, 95 % CI 0.9-1.4; P = 0.18). Rates of low 5 min Apgar scores (<7) and perinatal mortality were lower among twins with GDM (2.9 % vs. 5.3 %, OR = 0.5, 95 % CI 0.3-0.8 0; P = 0.005 and 2.3 % vs. 4.4 %, OR = 0.5, 95 % CI 0.3-0.8; P = 0.005, respectively). In our population, GDM in twin pregnancies was not associated with increased rates of adverse perinatal outcomes. In addition, GDM was not found to be an independent risk factor for CD in twin pregnancies.
    Archives of Gynecology 05/2014; 290(4). · 1.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Revista colombiana de obstetricia y ginecología 03/2008; 59(1):38-45.