-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) May 2022To investigate the association between gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse outcomes of pregnancy after adjustment for at least minimal confounding factors. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the association between gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse outcomes of pregnancy after adjustment for at least minimal confounding factors.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Web of Science, PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from 1 January 1990 to 1 November 2021.
REVIEW METHODS
Cohort studies and control arms of trials reporting complications of pregnancy in women with gestational diabetes mellitus were eligible for inclusion. Based on the use of insulin, studies were divided into three subgroups: no insulin use (patients never used insulin during the course of the disease), insulin use (different proportions of patients were treated with insulin), and insulin use not reported. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the status of the country (developed or developing), quality of the study, diagnostic criteria, and screening method. Meta-regression models were applied based on the proportion of patients who had received insulin.
RESULTS
156 studies with 7 506 061 pregnancies were included, and 50 (32.1%) showed a low or medium risk of bias. In studies with no insulin use, when adjusted for confounders, women with gestational diabetes mellitus had increased odds of caesarean section (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.32), preterm delivery (1.51, 1.26 to 1.80), low one minute Apgar score (1.43, 1.01 to 2.03), macrosomia (1.70, 1.23 to 2.36), and infant born large for gestational age (1.57, 1.25 to 1.97). In studies with insulin use, when adjusted for confounders, the odds of having an infant large for gestational age (odds ratio 1.61, 1.09 to 2.37), or with respiratory distress syndrome (1.57, 1.19 to 2.08) or neonatal jaundice (1.28, 1.02 to 1.62), or requiring admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (2.29, 1.59 to 3.31), were higher in women with gestational diabetes mellitus than in those without diabetes. No clear evidence was found for differences in the odds of instrumental delivery, shoulder dystocia, postpartum haemorrhage, stillbirth, neonatal death, low five minute Apgar score, low birth weight, and small for gestational age between women with and without gestational diabetes mellitus after adjusting for confounders. Country status, adjustment for body mass index, and screening methods significantly contributed to heterogeneity between studies for several adverse outcomes of pregnancy.
CONCLUSIONS
When adjusted for confounders, gestational diabetes mellitus was significantly associated with pregnancy complications. The findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the adverse outcomes of pregnancy related to gestational diabetes mellitus. Future primary studies should routinely consider adjusting for a more complete set of prognostic factors.
REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021265837.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Diabetes, Gestational; Female; Fetal Macrosomia; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Insulin; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 35613728
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-067946 -
Women's Health (London, England) 2016Shoulder dystocia is a complication of vaginal delivery and the primary factor associated with brachial plexus injury. In this review, we discuss the risk factors for... (Review)
Review
Shoulder dystocia is a complication of vaginal delivery and the primary factor associated with brachial plexus injury. In this review, we discuss the risk factors for shoulder dystocia and propose a framework for the prediction and prevention of the complication. A recommended approach to management when shoulder dystocia occurs is outlined, with review of the maneuvers used to relieve the obstruction with minimal risk of fetal and maternal injury.
Topics: Birth Injuries; Brachial Plexus; Delivery, Obstetric; Dystocia; Female; Fetus; Humans; Pregnancy; Risk Factors; Shoulder Injuries
PubMed: 26901875
DOI: 10.2217/whe.15.103 -
International Journal of Women's Health 2018Shoulder dystocia can lead to death or brain damage for the baby. Traction on the head can damage the brachial plexus. The diagnosis should be made when the mother... (Review)
Review
Shoulder dystocia can lead to death or brain damage for the baby. Traction on the head can damage the brachial plexus. The diagnosis should be made when the mother cannot push the shoulders out with her own efforts with the next contraction after delivery of the head. There should be no traction on the head to diagnose shoulder dystocia. McRoberts' position is acceptable but it should not be accompanied by any traction on the head. If the posterior shoulder is in the sacral hollow then the best approach is to use posterior axillary traction to deliver the posterior shoulder and arm. If both shoulders are above the pelvic brim, the posterior arm should be brought down with Jacquemier's maneuver. If that fails, cephalic replacement or symphysiotomy is the next step. After shoulder dystocia is resolved, one should wait 1 minute or so to allow placental blood to return to the baby before cutting the umbilical cord.
PubMed: 30519118
DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S175088 -
Annals of Nutrition & Metabolism 2015Fetal macrosomia, defined as a birth weight ≥ 4,000 g, may affect 12% of newborns of normal women and 15-45% of newborns of women with gestational diabetes mellitus... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fetal macrosomia, defined as a birth weight ≥ 4,000 g, may affect 12% of newborns of normal women and 15-45% of newborns of women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The increased risk of macrosomia in GDM is mainly due to the increased insulin resistance of the mother. In GDM, a higher amount of blood glucose passes through the placenta into the fetal circulation. As a result, extra glucose in the fetus is stored as body fat causing macrosomia, which is also called 'large for gestational age'. This paper reviews studies that explored the impact of GDM and fetal macrosomia as well as macrosomia-related complications on birth outcomes and offers an evaluation of maternal and fetal health.
SUMMARY
Fetal macrosomia is a common adverse infant outcome of GDM if unrecognized and untreated in time. For the infant, macrosomia increases the risk of shoulder dystocia, clavicle fractures and brachial plexus injury and increases the rate of admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit. For the mother, the risks associated with macrosomia are cesarean delivery, postpartum hemorrhage and vaginal lacerations. Infants of women with GDM are at an increased risk of becoming overweight or obese at a young age (during adolescence) and are more likely to develop type II diabetes later in life. Besides, the findings of several studies that epigenetic alterations of different genes of the fetus of a GDM mother in utero could result in the transgenerational transmission of GDM and type II diabetes are of concern.
Topics: Adipose Tissue; Blood Glucose; Cesarean Section; Diabetes, Gestational; Dystocia; Epigenesis, Genetic; Female; Fetal Macrosomia; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Insulin; Insulin Resistance; Insulin Secretion; Maternal-Fetal Exchange; Metabolic Syndrome; Obesity; Overweight; Pancreas; Pregnancy; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Shoulder
PubMed: 26045324
DOI: 10.1159/000371628 -
The New England Journal of Medicine May 2008It is controversial whether maternal hyperglycemia less severe than that in diabetes mellitus is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes.
BACKGROUND
It is controversial whether maternal hyperglycemia less severe than that in diabetes mellitus is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes.
METHODS
A total of 25,505 pregnant women at 15 centers in nine countries underwent 75-g oral glucose-tolerance testing at 24 to 32 weeks of gestation. Data remained blinded if the fasting plasma glucose level was 105 mg per deciliter (5.8 mmol per liter) or less and the 2-hour plasma glucose level was 200 mg per deciliter (11.1 mmol per liter) or less. Primary outcomes were birth weight above the 90th percentile for gestational age, primary cesarean delivery, clinically diagnosed neonatal hypoglycemia, and cord-blood serum C-peptide level above the 90th percentile. Secondary outcomes were delivery before 37 weeks of gestation, shoulder dystocia or birth injury, need for intensive neonatal care, hyperbilirubinemia, and preeclampsia.
RESULTS
For the 23,316 participants with blinded data, we calculated adjusted odds ratios for adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with an increase in the fasting plasma glucose level of 1 SD (6.9 mg per deciliter [0.4 mmol per liter]), an increase in the 1-hour plasma glucose level of 1 SD (30.9 mg per deciliter [1.7 mmol per liter]), and an increase in the 2-hour plasma glucose level of 1 SD (23.5 mg per deciliter [1.3 mmol per liter]). For birth weight above the 90th percentile, the odds ratios were 1.38 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32 to 1.44), 1.46 (1.39 to 1.53), and 1.38 (1.32 to 1.44), respectively; for cord-blood serum C-peptide level above the 90th percentile, 1.55 (95% CI, 1.47 to 1.64), 1.46 (1.38 to 1.54), and 1.37 (1.30 to 1.44); for primary cesarean delivery, 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06 to 1.15), 1.10 (1.06 to 1.15), and 1.08 (1.03 to 1.12); and for neonatal hypoglycemia, 1.08 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.19), 1.13 (1.03 to 1.26), and 1.10 (1.00 to 1.12). There were no obvious thresholds at which risks increased. Significant associations were also observed for secondary outcomes, although these tended to be weaker.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate strong, continuous associations of maternal glucose levels below those diagnostic of diabetes with increased birth weight and increased cord-blood serum C-peptide levels.
Topics: Adult; Blood Glucose; C-Peptide; Cesarean Section; Female; Fetal Blood; Fetal Macrosomia; Glucose Tolerance Test; Humans; Hyperglycemia; Hypoglycemia; Infant, Newborn; Odds Ratio; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 18463375
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0707943 -
American Family Physician Jul 2020Shoulder dystocia is an obstetric emergency in which normal traction on the fetal head does not lead to delivery of the shoulders. This can cause neonatal brachial...
Shoulder dystocia is an obstetric emergency in which normal traction on the fetal head does not lead to delivery of the shoulders. This can cause neonatal brachial plexus injuries, hypoxia, and maternal trauma, including damage to the bladder, anal sphincter, and rectum, and postpartum hemorrhage. Although fetal macrosomia, prior shoulder dystocia, and preexisting or gestational diabetes mellitus increases the risk of shoulder dystocia, most cases occur without warning. Labor and delivery teams should always be prepared to recognize and treat this emergency. Training and simulation exercises improve physician and team performance when shoulder dystocia occurs. Unequivocally announcing that dystocia is happening, summoning extra assistance, keeping track of the time from delivery of the head to full delivery of the neonate, and communicating with the patient and health care team are helpful. Calm and thoughtful use of release maneuvers such as knee to chest (McRoberts maneuver), suprapubic pressure, posterior arm or shoulder delivery, and internal rotational maneuvers will almost always result in successful delivery. When these are unsuccessful, additional maneuvers, including intentional clavicular fracture or cephalic replacement, may lead to delivery. Each institution should consider the length of time it will take to prepare the operating room for general inhalational anesthesia and abdominal rescue and practice this during simulation exercises.
Topics: Adult; Curriculum; Delivery, Obstetric; Education, Medical, Continuing; Emergency Medical Services; Female; Fractures, Bone; Health Personnel; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Male; Middle Aged; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pregnancy; Shoulder Dystocia
PubMed: 32667171
DOI: No ID Found -
The New England Journal of Medicine Mar 2021Gestational diabetes mellitus is common and is associated with an increased risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Although experts recommend universal... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Gestational diabetes mellitus is common and is associated with an increased risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Although experts recommend universal screening for gestational diabetes, consensus is lacking about which of two recommended screening approaches should be used.
METHODS
We performed a pragmatic, randomized trial comparing one-step screening (i.e., a glucose-tolerance test in which the blood glucose level was obtained after the oral administration of a 75-g glucose load in the fasting state) with two-step screening (a glucose challenge test in which the blood glucose level was obtained after the oral administration of a 50-g glucose load in the nonfasting state, followed, if positive, by an oral glucose-tolerance test with a 100-g glucose load in the fasting state) in all pregnant women who received care in two health systems. Guidelines for the treatment of gestational diabetes were consistent with the two screening approaches. The primary outcomes were a diagnosis of gestational diabetes, large-for-gestational-age infants, a perinatal composite outcome (stillbirth, neonatal death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture, or any arm or hand nerve palsy related to birth injury), gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, and primary cesarean section.
RESULTS
A total of 23,792 women underwent randomization; women with more than one pregnancy during the trial could have been assigned to more than one type of screening. A total of 66% of the women in the one-step group and 92% of those in the two-step group adhered to the assigned screening. Gestational diabetes was diagnosed in 16.5% of the women assigned to the one-step approach and in 8.5% of those assigned to the two-step approach (unadjusted relative risk, 1.94; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 1.79 to 2.11). In intention-to-treat analyses, the respective incidences of the other primary outcomes were as follows: large-for-gestational-age infants, 8.9% and 9.2% (relative risk, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.05); perinatal composite outcome, 3.1% and 3.0% (relative risk, 1.04; 97.5% CI, 0.88 to 1.23); gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, 13.6% and 13.5% (relative risk, 1.00; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.08); and primary cesarean section, 24.0% and 24.6% (relative risk, 0.98; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.02). The results were materially unchanged in intention-to-treat analyses with inverse probability weighting to account for differential adherence to the screening approaches.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite more diagnoses of gestational diabetes with the one-step approach than with the two-step approach, there were no significant between-group differences in the risks of the primary outcomes relating to perinatal and maternal complications. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; ScreenR2GDM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02266758.).
Topics: Adult; Blood Glucose; Diabetes, Gestational; Female; Fetal Macrosomia; Glucose Tolerance Test; Humans; Hyperglycemia; Incidence; Mass Screening; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 33704936
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2026028 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Sep 2019To determine accurate estimates of risks of maternal and neonatal complications in pregnancies with fetal macrosomia by performing a systematic review of the literature... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine accurate estimates of risks of maternal and neonatal complications in pregnancies with fetal macrosomia by performing a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library was performed to identify relevant studies reporting on maternal and/or neonatal complications in pregnancies with macrosomia having a birth weight (BW) > 4000 g and/or those with birth weight > 4500 g. Prospective and retrospective cohort and population-based studies that provided data regarding both cases and controls were included. Maternal outcomes assessed were emergency Cesarean section (CS), postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) and obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS). Neonatal outcomes assessed were shoulder dystocia, obstetric brachial plexus injury (OBPI) and birth fractures. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was used to estimate weighted pooled estimates of summary statistics (odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI) for each complication, according to birth weight. Heterogeneity between studies was estimated using Cochran's Q, I statistic and funnel plots.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies reporting data on maternal and/or neonatal complications in pregnancy with macrosomia were included. In pregnancies with macrosomia having a BW > 4000 g, there was an increased risk of the maternal complications: emergency CS, PPH and OASIS, which had OR (95% CI) of 1.98 (1.80-2.18), 2.05 (1.90-2.22) and 1.91 (1.56-2.33), respectively. The corresponding values for pregnancies with BW > 4500 g were: 2.55 (2.33-2.78), 3.15 (2.14-4.63) and 2.56 (1.97-3.32). Similarly, in pregnancies with a BW > 4000 g, there was an increased risk of the neonatal complications: shoulder dystocia, OBPI and birth fractures, which had OR (95% CI) of 9.54 (6.76-13.46), 11.03 (7.06-17.23) and 6.43 (3.67-11.28), respectively. The corresponding values for pregnancies with a BW > 4500 g were: 15.64 (11.31-21.64), 19.87 (12.19-32.40) and 8.16 (2.75-24.23).
CONCLUSION
Macrosomia is associated with serious maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes. This study provides accurate estimates of these risks, which can be used for decisions on pregnancy management. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Topics: Adult; Cesarean Section; Dystocia; Female; Fetal Macrosomia; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Newborn, Diseases; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 30938004
DOI: 10.1002/uog.20279