Elective induction of labor in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: an intervention that modifies the risk of cesarean section

Predictors of response after a second attempt of pharmacological labor induction: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

The aim of our study was to assess the outcomes of a prolonged induction carried out with a second sequential cycle of pharmacological stimulation after unsatisfactory response to a first attempt, and to highlight variables correlated with higher response rates.

METHODS

A retrospective study was carried out on 157 women who underwent a two-step labor induction by vaginal prostaglandins followed by a second cycle of prostaglandins or intravenous oxytocin. Outcomes assessed were mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal morbidity. Main variables of pregnancy and delivery were collected to identify factors predicting the mode of delivery.

RESULTS

Among 157 patients, 63 (40.1%) achieved a vaginal delivery, whereas 94 (59.9%) underwent Cesarean section, 9 women (5.7%) had postpartum hemorrhage; in 2 cases (1.3%), an Apgar score < 7 at 5 min from birth was reported. Higher risk of Cesarean section was observed with advanced maternal age (OR 1.13 for additional year, CI 1.04-1.22) and nulliparity (OR 8.84, CI 2.69-29.06), whereas the response rates were better in carriers of group B streptococcus colonization (OR 0.38, CI 0.17-0.84) and in women with favorable cervical status after the first stimulation (OR 0.81 for additional point of Bishop score, CI 0.70-0.94).

CONCLUSION

Labor induction with two cycles of pharmacological stimulation is a procedure with fairly good success rates and a low risk of maternal and neonatal complications. Factors predicting its success encompass younger age, parity, a positive recto-vaginal swab for group B streptococcus and a favorable cervix following the first cycle of stimulation.

Treatments for women with gestational diabetes mellitus: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Successful treatments for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have the potential to improve health outcomes for women with GDM and their babies.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a comprehensive synthesis of evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews of the benefits and harms associated with interventions for treating GDM on women and their babies.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (5 January 2018) for reviews of treatment/management for women with GDM. Reviews of pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes were excluded.Two overview authors independently assessed reviews for inclusion, quality (AMSTAR; ROBIS), quality of evidence (GRADE), and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 reviews. Of these, 10 provided relevant high-quality and low-risk of bias data (AMSTAR and ROBIS) from 128 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 27 comparisons, 17,984 women, 16,305 babies, and 1441 children. Evidence ranged from high- to very low-quality (GRADE). Only one effective intervention was found for treating women with GDM.EffectiveLifestyle versus usual careLifestyle intervention versus usual care probably reduces large-for-gestational age (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.71; 6 RCTs, N = 2994; GRADE moderate-quality).PromisingNo evidence for any outcome for any comparison could be classified to this category.Ineffective or possibly harmful Lifestyle versus usual careLifestyle intervention versus usual care probably increases the risk of induction of labour (IOL) suggesting possible harm (average RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.46; 4 RCTs, N = 2699; GRADE moderate-quality).Exercise versus controlExercise intervention versus control for return to pre-pregnancy weight suggested ineffectiveness (body mass index, BMI) MD 0.11 kg/m², 95% CI -1.04 to 1.26; 3 RCTs, N = 254; GRADE moderate-quality).Insulin versus oral therapyInsulin intervention versus oral therapy probably increases the risk of IOL suggesting possible harm (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 3 RCTs, N = 348; GRADE moderate-quality).Probably ineffective or harmful interventionsInsulin versus oral therapyFor insulin compared to oral therapy there is probably an increased risk of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.12; 4 RCTs, N = 1214; GRADE moderate-quality).InconclusiveLifestyle versus usual careThe evidence for childhood adiposity kg/m² (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.11; 3 RCTs, N = 767; GRADE moderate-quality) and hypoglycaemia was inconclusive (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.52; 6 RCTs, N = 3000; GRADE moderate-quality).Exercise versus controlThe evidence for caesarean section (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.16; 5 RCTs, N = 316; GRADE moderate quality) and perinatal death or serious morbidity composite was inconclusive (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.61; 2 RCTs, N = 169; GRADE moderate-quality).Insulin versus oral therapyThe evidence for the following outcomes was inconclusive: pre-eclampsia (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.52; 10 RCTs, N = 2060), caesarean section (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; 17 RCTs, N = 1988), large-for-gestational age (average RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35; 13 RCTs, N = 2352), and perinatal death or serious morbidity composite (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.26; 2 RCTs, N = 760). GRADE assessment was moderate-quality for these outcomes.Insulin versus dietThe evidence for perinatal mortality was inconclusive (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.33; 4 RCTs, N = 1137; GRADE moderate-quality).Insulin versus insulinThe evidence for insulin aspart versus lispro for risk of caesarean section was inconclusive (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; 3 RCTs, N = 410; GRADE moderate quality).No conclusions possibleNo conclusions were possible for: lifestyle versus usual care (perineal trauma, postnatal depression, neonatal adiposity, number of antenatal visits/admissions); diet versus control (pre-eclampsia, caesarean section); myo-inositol versus placebo (hypoglycaemia); metformin versus glibenclamide (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, pregnancy-induced hypertension, death or serious morbidity composite, insulin versus oral therapy (development of type 2 diabetes); intensive management versus routine care (IOL, large-for-gestational age); post- versus pre-prandial glucose monitoring (large-for-gestational age). The evidence ranged from moderate-, low- and very low-quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is insufficient high-quality evidence about the effects on health outcomes of relevance for women with GDM and their babies for many of the comparisons in this overview comparing treatment interventions for women with GDM. Lifestyle changes (including as a minimum healthy eating, physical activity and self-monitoring of blood sugar levels) was the only intervention that showed possible health improvements for women and their babies. Lifestyle interventions may result in fewer babies being large. Conversely, in terms of harms, lifestyle interventions may also increase the number of inductions. Taking insulin was also associated with an increase in hypertensive disorders, when compared to oral therapy. There was very limited information on long-term health and health services costs. Further high-quality research is needed.

Cesarean section and diabetes during pregnancy: An NSW population study using the Robson classification

AIM

The aim of this study was to identify the main contributors to cesarean section (CS) among women with and without diabetes during pregnancy using the Robson classification and to compare CS rates within Robson groups.

METHODS

A population-based cohort study was conducted of all women who gave birth in New South Wales, Australia, between 2002 and 2012. Women with pregestational diabetes (types 1 and 2) and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) were grouped using the Robson classification. Adjusted odd ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

The total CS rate was 53.6% for women with pregestational diabetes, 36.8% for women with GDM and 28.5% for women without diabetes. Previous CS contributed the most to the total number of CS in all populations. For preterm birth, the contribution to the total was 20.5% for women with pregestational diabetes and 5.7% for women without diabetes. Compared to women without diabetes, for nulliparous with pregestational diabetes, the odds of CS was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.1-1.8) for spontaneous labor and 2.0 (95% CI, 1.7-2.3) for induction of labor.

CONCLUSION

A history of CS was the main contributor to the total CS. Reducing primary CS is the first step to lowering the high rate of CS among women with diabetes. Nulliparous women were more likely to have CS if they had pregestational diabetes. This increase was also evident in all multiparous women giving birth. The high rate of preterm births and CS reflects the clinical issues for women with diabetes during pregnancy.

A comparison of the clinical outcomes of induced and spontaneous labour in patients with gestational diabetes

Aim. To evaluate the clinical outcomes of induced and spontaneous labour in patients with gestational diabetes (GD).Materials and methods. This retrospective cohort study conducted at the Federal Almazov Northwest Medical Research Centre included 251 patients with GD who had given birth during 2014. The patients were divided into the following two groups: one included 210 patients who were treated with diet and the other included 41 patients who were treated with insulin. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients who had induced (n = 43) or spontaneous (n = 188) labour.Results. Complications of labour, such as dysthyroidism and uterine inertia, were significantly more common (p 0. 05) in induced labour patients than in those who had spontaneous labour (16. 3 vs. 3. 2% and 7% vs. 0%, respectively). Fetal distress occurred in 10. 6% and 9. 3% of patients during spontaneous and induced labour, respectively. The frequency of ceasarean section after induced labour was not significantly greater than that among patients who had spontaneous labour.Conclusion. Delivery at 38 to 39 weeks in women with GD has led to an increase in the rate of birth complications, such as uterine inertia and dysthyroidism. Gestational age cannot be considered as a sufficient indicator of labour induction at full-term in the absence of foetus distress or poor maternal glycemic control.