[page 29↓]

3.  Relevant original publications

3.1. The influence of glycemia on the embryogenesis

(1)

Schaefer, UM, Songster, G., Xiang, A, Berkowitz, K, Buchanan, TA, Kjos, SL. Congenital Malformations in Offspring of Women with Hyperglycemia First Detected During Pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 177 (1997) 1165-71

(2)

Schaefer - Graf, UM,Buchanan, TA, Xiang, A, Songster, G, Montoro M, Kjos, SL. Patterns of Congenital Anomalies and Relationship to Initial Maternal Fasting Glucose Levels in Pregnancies Complicated by Type 2 and Gestational Diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 182 (2000) 313-20

3.2. The influence of maternal glycemia and maternal obesity on fetal morbidity

3.2.1. The impact of borderline glucose intolerance

(1)

Schäfer-Graf, UM, Dupak, J, Vogel, M, Dudenhausen, JW, Kjos, SL, Buchanan, TA, Vetter, K. Hyperinsulinism, Neonatal Adiposity and Placental Immaturity in Infants born to Women with One Abnormal Glucose Tolerance Test Value. J Perinatal Med. 26 (1998) 27-36

(2)

Schaefer-Graf, UM, Rossi, R, Bührer, C, Siebert, G, Kjos, SL, Dudenhausen, JW , Vetter, K. Rate and risk factors of hypoglycemia in large-for-gestational-age newborns of non-diabetic mothers. Am J Obstet Gynecol (2002), 187, 913-7

3.2.2. The impact of maternal obesity

(1)

Schaefer-Graf, UM, Heuer, R , Kilavuz , Ö, Pandura, A, Henrich, W, Vetter, K.Maternal Obesity not Maternal Glucose Values Correlates Best with High Rates of FetalMacrosomia in Pregnancies Complicated by Gestational Diabetes.

J Perinatal Med (2002), 30, 313-321

(2)

Schaefer-Graf, UM, Kjos, SL, Heuer, R, Brauer, M, Vetter, K, Dudenhausen, JW.
Determinants for in Utero Macrosomia at Different Gestational Ages in Pregnancies Complicated by Gestational Diabetes and Impaired Glucose tolerance

Diabetes Care (2003), 26,193-198


[page 30↓]

3.3. The fetal abdominal circumference as predictor for fetal hyperinsulinism and macrosomia at birth

(1)

Schaefer-Graf, UM, Henrich, W, Bühling, KJ, Kjos, SL, Heinze, T, Engel, A, Buchanan, TA, Vetter, K, Dudenhausen, JW. Amniotic Fluid Insulin levels and Fetal Abdominal circumference at time of Amniocentesis in Pregnancies with Diabetes.

Diabetic Medicine 20 (2003) , 349-35

(2)

Ute M. Schaefer-Graf, Christoph Bührer, David A Sacks, Gerda Siebert, Ömer Kilavuz, Siri L. Kjos, Joachim W. Dudenhausen, Klaus Vetter.Does the addition of sonographic measurements of fetal abdominal circumference enhance the prediction of large-for-gestational-age newborns in pregnancies treated for gestational diabetes? Diabetes Care (2003) submitted

[page 31↓]Predicting neonatal macrosomia in women treated for gestational diabetes: Evaluation of a score based on maternal history and fetal ultrasound

Ute M. Schaefer-Graf, MD 1,2, Christoph Bührer, MD 3, David A Sacks, MD 5 , Gerda Siebert, PhD 4, Ömar Kilavuz, MD1, Siri L. Kjos, MD 6, Joachim W. Dudenhausen, MD 2, Klaus Vetter, MD 1

1Department of Obstetrics, Vivantes Medical Center Neukoelln, Berlin, Germany; 2Department of Obstetrics, 3Department of Neonatology, 4Department of Biometry, Charité, Campus Virchow - Klinikum, Humboldt-University, Berlin, Germany;

5Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Foundation Hospital, Bellflower, USA; 6Department of Obstetrics, Keck Medical School, University of California, Los Angeles, USA

Corresponding author

Ute M. Schaefer-Graf, MD

Department of Obstetrics

Charité, Campus Virchow-Klinikum

Augustenburger Platz 1

D-13353 Berlin

Phone: +49-4505-64072Fax: +49-4505-64901

e-mail: ute.schaefer@charite.de

Key words: ultrasound, diabetes, pregnancy, predictors, large-for-gestational age newborns


[page 32↓]

Condension

Maternal historical parameters and the fetal abdominal circumference predict an LGA infant but the predictive value is limited and is only slightly improved by the inclusion of ultrasound.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of treatment of women with gestational diabetes (GDM) includes prevention of the development of a large-for-gestational-age infant (LGA). To reserve intensified interventions for women at increased risk, we investigated potential LGA predictors and asked if inclusion of fetal ultrasound could enhance predictive power.

Research Design: In 728 women treated for GDM, maternal history variables, maternal glycemic values, and fetal abdominal circumference (AC) at entry and thereafter were compared between LGA and non-LGA infant women. Parameters identified by univariate analysis were investigated for their ability to predict LGA individually or collectively.

Results: A history of GDM (OR 1.9), prior delivery of an infant >4000 g birth weight (OR 2.2), prepregnancy BMI ≥30 kg/m2 (OR 2.4), and fetal AC ≥90th percentile at entry (OR 3.9) but not glycemic values were independent predictors of LGA. The area under a receiver operator characteristics curve of a score based on historical risk factors was 0.66. The area increased to 0.71 or 0.72 after inclusion of one or two fetal AC measurements, respectively. The negative predictive value for women with no risk factor excluding or including ultrasound at entry (n=437 and 356) was 0.90 and 0.93, respectively (p > 0.05). Subsequent ultrasound examinations did not improve predictive power.

Conclusions: In women treated for GDM, maternal history and sonographically-determined measures of fetal AC independently predict delivery of an LGA infant while glycemic values do not. However, the predictive value of these parameters is limited and is only slightly improved by the inclusion of ultrasound.


[page 33↓]

Introduction

Excessive growth due to fetal hyperinsulinism is a major clinical problem in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes (GDM). Presumably, infants born large-for-gestational-age (LGA) to mothers with GDM have been exposed to hyperglycemia in utero for prolonged periods of time and therefore are more prone to its long-term metabolic sequelae. In addition, LGA infants are at increased risk for obstetrical complications, and the rate of birth injuries of LGA infants born to GDM mothers even exceeds that of LGA infants born to non-GDM mothers. 1

To prevent the development of a LGA infant, interventions during pregnancy are focussed on the maintenance of maternal glucose values within a strict range supposed to reduce the risk for neonatal macrosomia and other morbidities. Despite apparently successful efforts toward maternal glycemic control the macrosomia rate in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes (GDM) is often reported to be higher than in a normal obstetrical population. 2-4 Antenatal risk assessment for LGA might improve the management of women who have GDM. In the present study, we evaluated the predictive ability of antenatal risk factors for the development of a large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infant and specifically assessed the contribution of individual or serial measurements of the fetal abdominal circumference (AC) by ultrasound. A score was created of the discriminatory variables, and its predictive power quantitated by receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curve analysis.

Research Design and Methods

Study population

Subjects were retrospectively selected from the population of women with glucose intolerance who attended the Diabetes Clinic of the Department of Obstetrics of an urban community hospital between 1994 and 2000 and had been entered into an ongoing database. Study inclusion criteria were: 1.) documented glucose intolerance first diagnosed in pregnancy ; 2.) accurate gestational age, confirmed by an ultrasound examination before 20 weeks of gestation; 3.) singleton pregnancy; 4.) at least one complete fetal biometry determined by ultrasound at entry to diabetic therapy; 5.) absence of identified fetal anomalies; 6.) documented data regarding maternal obstetrical history and anthropometry and 7.) documented delivery data.

Reflecting obstetrical standards in Germany, testing for GDM in our study subjects was performed selectively in women with risk factors. In women with historical risk factors testing was preformed in the first trimester otherwise whenever risk factors first occurred (e.g. [page 34↓]glucosuria) or were diagnosed (e.g. fetal macrosomia). The diagnosis of GDM was established by a 75g oral glucose tolerance test (oGTT) with determination of capillary blood glucose levels by glucose oxidase (Beckman Glucose Analyzer, Brea, CA). Diagnostic criteria for GDM valid in Germany at the time of study were: fasting >90 mg/dL (5.0 mmol/l); 1 hour >165 mg/dL (9.1 mmol/l), 2 hour >145 mg/dL (8.0 mmol/l) (adopted from O’Sullivan 5). Diagnosis of GDM required at least two abnormal values, and ofimpaired glucose tolerance (IGT) one abnormal value.

Women with GDM and IGT were educated regarding an individualized diabetic diet based on prepregnancy weight (30 kcal/kg/d) with caloric restriction for obese women (25 kcal/kg/d). All women were instructed to self-monitor blood glucose (SMBG) by performing a daily glucose profile (3 preprandial and 3 1-h-postprandial measurements) twice a week using a reflectance meter with electronic memory (Advantage Glucose meter, Roche Diagnostics, Germany).Accuracy of the glucose meters was tested biweekly by comparison with a laboratory glucose measurement (glucose oxidase). Insulin therapy was recommended when the mean of all glucose values of a profile exceeded 100 mg/dL (5.5 mmol/l) after a two-week trial of diet. Insulin dose was adjusted to achieve fasting glucose values ≤90 mg/dL (5.0 mmol/l) and 2 hour postprandial values ≤120 mg/dL (6.6 mmol/l). Women treated with insulin therapy were asked to perform glucose profiles every day.

An initial ultrasound examination with complete fetal biometry was scheduled at the entry visit and monthly in conjunction with Diabetes Clinic visits. The fetal abdominal circumference (AC) was measured in the standard cross-section view of the abdomen. 6

Potential risk factors and outcome data

Maternal parameters assessed included age, parity, history of prior macrosomia (birth weight ≥90th percentile for gestational age in at least one previous pregnancy 7) or GDM, prepregnancy body mass index (BMI) and weight gain during current pregnancy. Glycemic parameters included gestational age (GA) at time of diagnosis, glycosylated hemoglobin levels (HbA1c) at diagnosis, glucose levels of the diagnostic oGTT and from of the daily glucose profiles during pregnancy and insulin use.

The only fetal measurement utilized was the AC percentile for gestational age. All ultrasound measurements performed during the study were divided into 5 categories according to gestational age at time of examination, i.e. < 24, 24/0 –27/6, 28/0-31/6, 32/0-35/6, and 36/0 to 40/0 weeks/days. For purposes of data analysis AC measurements were [page 35↓]classified as either ≥ or < 90th percentile for gestational age according to standards published by Hadlock, et al. 6

Newborn parameters included birth weight and length and classification of the infants as large-for-gestational-age (LGA) or non-LGA. LGA was defined according the 90th percentile for gestational age using current German growth curves. 7

Statistical analysis

Differences between pregnancies resulting in LGA and non-LGA neonates at birth were tested for statistical significance by the Mann Whitney U test (continuous variables) or by χ2 analysis (categorical variables). Data are presented as mean ± SD.

A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine independent predictors of LGA neonates with their associated odds ratios. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV) to predict LGA were calculated for each predictor and for scores which combined all identified predictors. The scores were created based on the number of absent or present of identified risk factors, either with or without inclusion of a fetal AC ≥ 90th percentile as additional risk factor diagnosed exclusively at the first or at the first or second ultrasound. The predictive values were calculated for different cutoff points; absence of any versus presence of at least 1 risk factor, presence of 0-1 versus at least 2 risk factors and 0-2 versus at least 3 risk factors. The predictive power of each score was described by the area under a ROC curve.

All statistical analyses were performed with the statistical program SPSS 10.0 (SPSS, Chicago).

Results

A total of 1058 women had been entered in the database until December 2000. Of these, 54 women were excluded because of preexisting diabetes, and 276 women because of missing data, thus leaving 728 women for the final analysis. 552 (75.8 %) of the women were diagnosed with GDM, and 176 (24.2%) with IGT. While GDM women had significantly higher oGTT values, as compared to IGT women (fasting: 96.7 ± 22.0 vs 81.5 ± 23.9 mg/dL; 1 hour 204.1 ± 31.1 vs 179.9 ± 35.6 mg/dL; 2 hours 158.8 ± 37.1 vs 120.3 ± 25.3 mg/dL; p< 0.0001 for all comparisons), higher entry HbA1c levels (6.1 vs 5.4 %, p=0.05), and required insulin therapy more often (16.7.2% vs 6.3 %, p = 0.001), 3rd trimester glycemic control after initiation of therapy was not different between GDM and IGT women, as measured by fasting [page 36↓]and postprandial glucose values. Historical parameters did not differ significantly between the two groups, as did AC measurements at entry (AC ≥ 90th percentile, 21.7 % vs 24.7%) or LGA at birth (16.3 vs 13.6 %). Therefore, women with GDM and IGT were analyzed together.

A total of 1712 ultrasound examinations were available for analysis. Out of 728 subjects, in 35.1 % one ultrasound examination, in 23.7% two and in 41.2 % three to five examinations were performed. The entry ultrasound examinations were distributed almost equally between those performed prior to 28 weeks (38.1%), between 28 to 31/6 (29.0%) and 32/0 to 36/0 weeks /days (34.9). (Only 8 scans at entry were performed beyond 36 weeks of gestation) At entry, an AC ≥ 90th percentile was foundin 22.4 % (177) of the pregnancies and there was at least one event of an AC ≥ 90th percentile throughout pregnancy in 26.5% (193) of the infants.

A total of 114 (of 728, 15.7%) women delivered an LGA infant. Table 1 displays maternal characteristics of mothers of LGA compared to those of non-LGA infants. (table). There was no difference in gestational age at diagnosis between pregnancies resulting in a LGA infant compared to AGA newborns. The LGA rate was 16.4% when GDM was diagnosed < 28 weeks of gestation and 14.9% for ≥ 28 weeks (p= 0.3). A fetal AC ≥ 90th percentile at entry or thereafter was found more frequently among babies destined to be LGA (p<0.0001, table 1). LGA infants were delivered significantly earlier than non-LGA newborns thus the maternal parameter weight gain was examined for difference between the two groups after adjusting for gestational age at delivery.

The multivariate regression analysis revealed four independent predictors for a LGA newborn (table 2). Calculations of the predictive power of the identified predictors are displayed in table 2. The NPV value of the fetal AC was slightly improved by a second ultrasound while a third measurement did not further increase the predictive power. Ultrasound examinations performed at different gestational ages (20/0-23/6, 24/0 –27/6, 28/0-31/6, 32/0-35/6, or > 36/0 weeks/days) had virtually identical NPV values (88.1% - 91.0%).

Scores were created combining the three identified historical risk factors, either with or without inclusion of one or two fetal AC measurements. For primiparae only the maternal BMI and the fetal AC was used as risk factors for the score. The predictive power is displayed in table 3. The area under the ROC curve was 0.61 for historical risk factors alone, 0.71 with inclusion of one and 0.72 of two ultrasound examinations. The area under the ROC curves of the two scores including ultrasound did not differ significantly compared to the score based only on historical factors (p = 0.12 and 0.14, respectively).


[page 37↓]

Comment

In this large-scale retrospective study of pregnant women treated for glucose intolerance, we identified and evaluated antenatal risk factors for delivery of an LGA infant and specifically assessed the value of repeat fetal AC ultrasound measurements. There are three major findings: First, a history of a prior baby weighing ≥ 4000 g, a prior maternal history of GDM, a maternal BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 were predictors of LGA babies. Second, fetal AC at entry was the strongest predictor of LGA neonates. However, the addition of the first fetal AC measurement to the maternal historical predictors improved the predictive power only slightly, and additional ultrasound examinations were of no further value. Third, all predictors, individually or collectively, had a limited ability to predict a LGA infant in this cohort of women.

In contrast to others’ works, this study included detailed data documenting maternal glycemic values at entry and thereafter, and numerous consecutive ultrasound measurements of fetal growth. None of the glycemic parameters either at entry or thereafter was associated with LGA at birth. In untreated pregnant women with impaired glucose tolerance glucose values have, however, been found to be related to macrosomia. 8 The more stringent criteria defining need for treatment in our study and subsequent good glycemic control might explain the complete loss of the discriminative power of the glycemic parameters. In addition, factors besides maternal concentrations of glucose have been reported to be associated with birth weight. 9, 10,11

The strongest predictor of an LGA neonate was a fetal AC > 90th percentile at entry with a 4-fold increase of the risk for LGA. A large amount of data investigated the predictive power of ultrasound measurements for macrosomia at birth. 12-18 There is an agreement about the unsatisfied accuracy of the estimation of fetal weight obtained by ultrasound at term to predict an LGA newborn, especially in diabetic pregnancies or in extremely overweight infants. 17Sonographic weight estimates are derived from cross-sectional data. Fetuses with accelerated growth due to maternal diabetes have been shown to have an increase in adipose tissue, which is less dense than fat-free tissue (e.g. muscle and bone). Thus the application of tables derived from an unselected patient population may lead to sonographic overestimation of fetal weight 19, 20. This might explain our finding of a high false positive rate of the AC in predicting LGA babies which is consistent with the reports of others 13, 15. However, there is evidence that the fetal AC is the best of all fetal measurements to identify macrosomic [page 38↓]growth. 12, 13, 15, 18 Recently, our group demonstrated that a fetal AC < 75th percentile reliably excluded fetal hyperinsulinism at a level which is known to be associated with morbidity. 21

Few studies have assessed the utility of serial measurements in predicting birth weight, 15 but failed to provide information on how much incremental improvement in prediction is accrued with each additional examination. According to our data, the predictive power of repeat ultrasound examinations does not differ considerablyfrom those of a single examination at entry. Surprisingly, the gestational age when the AC was obtained seemed to have a limited influence on the NPV. Most of the existing studies performed the AC measurement during a defined tight period (30-36 weeks) 14, 15 and did not determine the predictive power at different times of pregnancy.

In summary, there are antenatal maternal and fetal factors in GDM pregnancies which are significantly associated with an increased risk for accelerated growth but the delivery of an LGA infant in pregnancies complicated by GDM seems not to be predictable. Neither a single parameter, nor the combination of multiple maternal risk factors nor the inclusion of measurements of the fetal AC showed a satisfying predictive power. Likely due to the low incidence of LGA in our cohort, identification of those with a low LGA infant risk was possible with reasonable accuracy. The establishment of more specific, and easily reproducible sonographic measures of evolving diabetic fetopathy in utero as part of the routine ultrasound examination could further enhance the clinical value of involving fetal ultrasound.

References

  1. Nesbitt TS, Gilbert WM, Herrchen B. Shoulder dystocia and associated risk factors with macrosomic infants born in California. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998(179): 476-80.
  2. Schaefer-Graf UM, Dupak J, Vogel M, Dudenhausen JW, Kjos SL, Buchanan TA, et al. Hyperinsulinism, neonatal adiposity and placental immaturity in infants born to women with one abnormal glucose tolerance test value. J Perinatal Med. 1998; 26:27-36.
  3. Gokcel A, Bagis T, Killicadag E, Tarim E, Guvener N. Comparison of the criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus by NDDG and Carpenter and Coustan, and the outcomes of pregnancy. J Endocrinol Invest 2002; 25 (4):357-61.
  4. Metzger BE, Coustan DR. Summary and Recommendations of the 4th International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes. Diabetes Care 1998; 21 (Suppl.): 161-167.[page 39↓]
  5. O'Sullivan J, Mahan C. Criteria for the oral glucose tolerance test in pregnancy. Diabetes 1964; 13:278-285.
  6. Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. Estimated fetal age: Computer-assisted analysis of multiple fetal growth parameters. Radiology 1984; 152:497-501.
  7. Voigt M, Schneider K, Jährig K. Analysis of the total number of birth in 1992 in the Federal Republik of Germany. Geburth. u. Frauenheilk. 1996; 56:550-558.
  8. Sermer M, Naylor DC, for the Toronto Tri Hospital Gestational Diabetes Investigators. Impact of increasing carbohydrate intolerance on maternal-fetal outcomes in 3637 women without diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 173:146-56.
  9. Jansson T, Ekstrand Y, Bjorn C, Wennergen M, Powell T. Alterations in the activity of placental amino acid transporters in pregnancies complicated by diabetes. Diabetes 2002; 51:2214-9.
  10. Knopp RH, Magee MS, Walden CE, Bonet B, Benedetti TJ. Prediction of infant birth weight by GDM screening: importance of plasma triglyceride. Diabetes Care 1992;15: 1605-1613.
  11. Homko CJ, Sivan E, Nyirjesy P. The interrelationship between ethnicity and gestational diabetes in fetal macrosomia. Diabetes Care 1995; 18:1442-1445.
  12. Ogata E, Sabbagha R, Metzger B, Phelps R, Depp R, Freinkel N. Serial ultrasonography to assess evolving fetal macrosomia. JAMA 1980; 243:2405-2408.
  13. Landon MB, Mintz MC, Gabbe SG. Sonographic evaluation of fetal abdominal growth: Predictor of large-for-gestational-age infant in pregnancies complicated by diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160:115-121.
  14. Bochner CJ, Medearis AL, Williams J, Castro L, Hobel CJ, Wade ME. Early third-trimester ultrasound screening in gestational diabetes to determine the risk of macrosomia and labor dystocia at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157:703-708.
  15. Hedriana H, Moore T. A comparison of single versus multiple growth ultrasound examinations in predicting birth weight. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994(170): 1600-1604.
  16. Jazaheri A, Heffron J, Phillips R, Spellacy W. Macrosomia prediction using ultrasound fetal abdominal circumference of 35 centimeter or more. Obstet Gynecol 1999(93): 523-6.
  17. Wong S, Chan F, Cincotta R, Oats J, McIntyre H. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight in macrosomic fetuses: diabetic versus non-diabetic. Aust N Z Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 41:429-32.[page 40↓]
  18. Sokol R, Chik L, Dombrowski M, Zador I. Correctly identifying the macrosomic fetus: Improving ultrasonography-based prediction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182: 1489-95.
  19. Bernstein IM, Catalano PM. Influence of fetal fat on the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight in diabetic mothers. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79:561-563.
  20. Catalano PM, Tzybir, E.D., Allan, S.R., McBean, J.H., McAuliffe, T.L. Evaluation of fetal growth by estimation of neonatal body composition. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79:46-50.
  21. Schaefer-Graf U, Kjos S, Bühling K, Henrich W, Brauer M, Heinze T, et al. Amniotic fluid insulin levels and fetal abdominal circumference at time of amniocentesis in pregnancies with diabetes. Diabetic Med 2003; in press.


[page 41↓]


[page 42↓]

Table 1: Maternal characteristics and glycemic values in GDM pregnancies with and without LGA newborns(continuous variables expressed as mean ± SD)

Non LGA

(n= 115)

LGA

(n=617)

p-value

Maternal history

   

Age (years)

30.5 ± 5.4

31.1 ± 5.2

0.2

Multiparae (%)

54.9

67.0

0.01

Prepregnancy BMI (kg/m2)

26.9 ± 6.0

29.9 ± 5.9

0.000

Prepregnancy BMI >30 kg/m 2 (%)

24.8

42.1

0.000

Prior GDM (% of multiparas)

19.2

37.7

0.001

Prior Macrosomia (> 4000 g) (% of multiparas)

14.2

41.8

0.000

Maternal glycemic values

   

Gestational age at diagnosis

26.5 ± 5.6

26.0 ± 5.9

0.4

Oral glucose tolerance test

- fasting (mg/dl)

92.7 ± 24.3

93.9 ± 18.5

0.6

- 1-h mg/dl)

198.2 ± 34.3

196.9 ± 43.2

0.7

- 2-h (mg/dl)

148.8 ± 38.6

151.5 ± 38.2

0.5

IGT (%)

24.6

20.9

0.6

Glycemic values at study entry

   

Fasting of the profile

80.6 ± 14.1

83.4 ± 14.1

0.064

Postprandials of the profile

112.7 ± 15.3

116.5 ± 14.5

0.3

HbA1c (%)

5.7 ± 1.3

5.9 ± 1.2

0.09

Mean of fasting glucose during pregnancy

  

28-31/6 weeks

81.5 ± 14.7

83.4 ± 15.3

0.4

32-35/6 weeks

79.3 ± 12.1

82.4 ± 12.2

0.58

Mean of postprandial glucose during pregnancy

  

28-31/6 weeks

106.3 ± 18.5

107.5 ± 18.6

0.7

32-35/6 weeks

105.5 ± 17.3

104.9 ± 17.5

0.8

Weight gain (kg)

11.8 ± 7.7

12.7 ± 5.9

0.3

Insulin use (%)

13.3

11.8.

0.2

Fetal and neonatal parameter

   

AC ≥ 90th percentile at entry (%)

17.7

47.8

< 0.0001

At least 1 AC ≥ 90th percentile (%)

21.4

53.9

0.0000

GA at delivery (weeks)

39.0 ± 1.7

38.6 ± 1.9

0.04

Delivery by Cesarean Section (%)

17.9

24.3

0.07

Table 2: Sensitivity , specificity , positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV) of the identified independent predictors for LGA in pregnancies with GDM

 

OR (95% CI)

Sensitivity

Specificity

PPV

NPV

Prior pregnancy with macrosomia

1.9 (1.07-3.5)

39.5

92.0

28.1

87.3

Prior pregnancy with GDM

1.9 (1.2-4.2)

31.6

89.4

26.3

86.7

Maternal BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2

1.9 (1.2-3.)

42.5

75.5

24.2

87.6

AC ≥ 90th percentile at entry

3.9 (2.4-6.2)

48.7

82.4

33.7

89.6

At least 1 event of AC ≥ 90th

in 1st or 2nd US

3.8 (2.4-6.1)

59.4

78.9

33.5

91.5

At least 1 event of AC ≥ 90th in

1st, 2ndor 3rd US

3.7 (2.3-6.3)

57.4

79.1

33.8

90.5


[page 43↓]

Table 3: Predictive values of a score based on the presence or absence of the identified risk factors (prior pregnancy with macrosomia or GDM, maternal BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2)without or with inclusion of the fetal abdominal circumference ≥ 90th percentile as risk factor obtained by 1 or 2 ultrasound examinations. In primiparae only maternal BMI and fetal AC were considered

Cohort dived according to

No. of risk factors

0 vs At least 1 RF

Primiparae Multiparae

0-1 vs At least 2 RF

Primiparae Multiparae

0-2 vs at

least 3 RF

Score without US

     

Spec

75.5

64.4

 

92.6

99.8

Sens

39.5

64.0

 

23.6

8.7

NPV

90.9

90.4

 

86.4

85.5

PPV

23.8

25.1

 

37.5

90.0

Score with 1st US

     

Spec

62.7

53.7

93.9

87.8

97.8

Sens

61.7

77.2

23.5

44.7

15.8

NPV

85.6

92.6

81.8

89.5

86.2

PPV

30.8

23.6

51.6

40.5

58.1

Score with 1 st and 2 nd US

     

Spec

61.6

52.9

91.3

79.3

94.3

Sens

63.7

78.0

36.2

59.6

28.1

NPV

86.2

92.9

92.2

91.0

87.6

PPV

30.8

23.6

55.8

34.1

47.8


[page 44↓]

3.4.  Intervention studies evaluating a fetal-growth-based management of GDM

(1)

Buchanan, TA, Kjos, SL, Schaefer, U, Peters, RK, Xiang, A, Byrne, J, Berkowitz, K.

Utility of Fetal Measurements in the Management of Gestational Diabetes. Diabetes Care 21 (1998) 99-106

(2)

Kjos, SL., Schaefer - Graf , UM., Byrne, JD., Berkowitz, K., Sutherland, C., Montoro, M., Buchanan, TA. A Randomized Trial Utilizing Glycemic plus Fetal Ultrasound Parameters vs. Glycemic Parameters to Determine Insulin Therapy in Gestational Diabetes with Fasting Hyperglycemia, Diabetes Care 24 (2001) 1904-1910

(3)

Schaefer-Graf UM, Kjos SL, Ostary Fauzan, BuehlingKJ , SiebertG Barbara Ladendorf B, Bührer C, DudenhausenJW, Vetter K. A randomized trial evaluating a predominately fetal-growth-based strategy to guide management of gestational diabetes in Caucasian women. Diabetes Care 27 (2004) 297-302


© Die inhaltliche Zusammenstellung und Aufmachung dieser Publikation sowie die elektronische Verarbeitung sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung, die nicht ausdrücklich vom Urheberrechtsgesetz zugelassen ist, bedarf der vorherigen Zustimmung. Das gilt insbesondere für die Vervielfältigung, die Bearbeitung und Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronische Systeme.
DiML DTD Version 3.0Zertifizierter Dokumentenserver
der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
HTML generated:
15.06.2004