Perinatal outcome following induction of labor in patients with good glycemic controlled gestational diabetes: does timing matter?

Doppler Indices of the Uterine, Umbilical and Fetal Middle Cerebral Artery in Diabetic versus Non-Diabetic Pregnancy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the differences in Doppler indices of the uterine (Ut), umbilical (UA), and middle cerebral artery (MCA) in diabetic versus non-diabetic pregnancies by conducting a comprehensive systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS were searched for studies that measured the pulsatility index (PI), resistance index (RI), and systolic/diastolic ratio index (S/D ratio) of the umbilical artery, middle cerebral artery, and uterine artery in diabetic versus non-diabetic pregnancies. Two reviewers independently evaluated the eligibility of studies, abstracted data, and performed quality assessments according to standardized protocols. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was used as a measure of effect size. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Publication bias was evaluated by means of funnel plots. Results: A total of 62 publications were included in the qualitative and 43 in quantitative analysis. The UA-RI, UtA-PI, and UtA-S/D ratios were increased in diabetic compared with non-diabetic pregnancies. Subgroup analysis showed that levels of UtA-PI were significantly higher during the third, but not during the first trimester of pregnancy in diabetic versus non-diabetic pregnancies. No differences were found for the UA-PI, UA-S/D ratio, MCA-PI, MCA-RI, MCA-S/D ratio, or UtA-RI between diabetic and non-diabetic pregnancies. Conclusions: This meta-analysis revealed the presence of hemodynamic changes in uterine and umbilical arteries, but not in the middle cerebral artery in pregnancies complicated by diabetes.

Gestational diabetes mellitus: The optimal time of delivery

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common pregnancy complication strongly associated with poor maternal-fetal outcomes. Its incidence and prevalence have been increasing in recent years. Women with GDM typically give birth through either vaginal delivery or cesarean section, and the maternal-fetal outcomes are related to several factors such as cervical level, fetal lung maturity, the level of glycemic control still present, and the mode of treatment for the condition. We categorized women with GDM based on the latter two factors. GDM that is managed without medication when it is responsive to nutrition- and exercise-based therapy is considered diet- and exercise-controlled GDM, or class A1 GDM, and GDM managed with medication to achieve adequate glycemic control is considered class A2 GDM. The remaining cases in which neither medical nor nutritional treatment can control glucose levels or patients who do not control their blood sugar are categorized as class A3 GDM. We investigated the optimal time of delivery for women with GDM according to the classification of the condition. This review aimed to address the benefits and harms of giving birth at different weeks of gestation for women with different classes of GDM and attempted to provide an analytical framework and clearer advice on the optimal time for labor.

Effect of mobile health based peripartum management of gestational diabetes mellitus on postpartum diabetes: A randomized controlled trial

AIMS

To investigate the effects of mobile health based peripartum management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) on postpartum diabetes and factors associated with postpartum diabetes.

METHODS

Women with GDM (n = 309) were randomly assigned to receive standard management (SM) or mobile management (MM). 75-g OGTT was performed at 6 weeks postpartum.

RESULTS

The incidence of postpartum T2DM in the MM group was much higher than that in SM group (12.36% vs. 3.88%, P =  0.0291). The fasting, 1-h and 2 h OGTT at 24-28 weeks of gestation of T2DM women were higher than those women without T2DM (fasting, 6.08 vs. 4.90, P = 0.0052; 1-h, 13.20 vs. 10.00, P < 0.0001; 11.96 vs. 8.83, P = 0.0026) in MM group. The 1-h and 2 h OGTT at 24-28 weeks of gestation of T2DM women were higher than those women without T2DM (11.54 vs. 9.78, P = 0.0484; 10.68 vs. 8.68, P = 0.0108) in SM group. Higher OGTT values at 24-28 weeks of gestation were risk factors of postpartum T2DM.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher OGTT values at 24-28 weeks of gestation were risk factors to develop postpartum T2DM. Mobile health based peripartum management of GDM increased the risk of postpartum diabetes among women with GDM for lacking of postpartum management. Further studies of mobile health based postpartum management of GDM are needed. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT03748576.

Evaluation of fetal cardiac function in pregnancies with well-controlled gestational diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate fetal ventricular diastolic function in pregnancies of women with gestational diabetes (GD), to determine whether minimal anomalies of glucose metabolism may influence fetal cardiac function.

STUDY DESIGN

Fetal ventricular filling time was measured by transabdominal ultrasound in singleton pregnancies between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation. We used a measurement which consists in the ratio between the diastolic time and the whole cardiac cycle time.

RESULTS

The study included 35 women with a GD and 217 non-diabetic. Right ventricular filling time (RVFT) was significantly lower in the GD group (mean of RVFT = 39.2 ± 4.4 vs 43.6 ± 4.6; p  <  0.01). Likewise, left ventricular filling time (LVFT) was shorter in the GD group compared to the non-GD group, though the difference was not significant (mean of LVFT = 43.6 ± 4.6 vs 44.6 ± 5.5; p  = 0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Fetal right cardiac function is altered also in pregnancies where gestational diabetes is well controlled.

Do fertility treatments affect labor induction success rate? A retrospective cohort study

Purpose: To evaluate labor induction success rate by Foley catheter (FC) on patients who conceived spontaneously, as compared to those who underwent fertility treatments.Materials and methods: This retrospective cohort study included all pregnant women hospitalized at a single tertiary care center between January 2011 and May 2018 for induction of labor with FC. The study groups included patients with a singleton pregnancy who conceived after fertility treatments: controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) or in vitro fertilization (IVF), while control group included patients who conceived spontaneously. Our primary outcome was the rate of cesarean deliveries. Regression analysis was conducted on the following parameters: age, gravidity, parity, the gestational week, and IVF.Results: The study groups included 59, 321, and 3159 patients who conceived following COH, IVF, or spontaneously, respectively. While 72.1% of patients who conceived spontaneously had a vaginal delivery, only 62.7% and 58% of patients who conceived by COH and IVF had successful labor induction (respectively, p < .01). Similarly, significantly higher cesarean section (CS) rates were demonstrated by patients who conceived by COH and IVF (28.8% and 30%, respectively), compared to the control group (18.7%, p < .01). Regression analysis demonstrated that although age, parity, and the gestational week were significantly related to cesarean sections, no statistically significant association was found regarding fertility treatments (p = .050).Conclusions: The possible association between fertility treatments and cesarean delivery remains an important dilemma for obstetricians and fertility experts. While unadjusted analysis demonstrated such association among patients who undergo labor induction by FC, adjusted analysis has not supported that finding. Further studies focusing on the causes of failed vaginal delivery are needed to further expand our knowledge and to improve patient consultation.

A systematic scoping review of clinical indications for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

The proportion of women undergoing induction of labour (IOL) has risen in recent decades, with significant variation within countries and between hospitals. The aim of this study was to review research supporting indications for IOL and determine which indications are supported by evidence and where knowledge gaps exist.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review of quantitative studies of common indications for IOL. For each indication, we included systematic reviews/meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case control studies that compared maternal and neonatal outcomes for different modes or timing of birth. Studies were identified via the databases PubMed, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from between April 2008 and November 2019, and also from reference lists of included studies. We identified 2554 abstracts and reviewed 300 full text articles. The quality of included studies was assessed using the RoB 2.0, the ROBINS-I and the ROBIN tool.

RESULTS

68 studies were included which related to post-term pregnancy (15), hypertension/pre-eclampsia (15), diabetes (9), prelabour rupture of membranes (5), twin pregnancy (5), suspected fetal compromise (4), maternal elevated body mass index (BMI) (4), intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (3), suspected macrosomia (3), fetal gastroschisis (2), maternal age (2), and maternal cardiac disease (1). Available evidence supports IOL for women with post-term pregnancy, although the evidence is weak regarding the timing (41 versus 42 weeks), and for women with hypertension/preeclampsia in terms of improved maternal outcomes. For women with preterm premature rupture of membranes (24-37 weeks), high-quality evidence supports expectant management rather than IOL/early birth. Evidence is weakly supportive for IOL in women with term rupture of membranes. For all other indications, there were conflicting findings and/or insufficient power to provide definitive evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

While for some indications, IOL is clearly recommended, a number of common indications for IOL do not have strong supporting evidence. Overall, few RCTs have evaluated the various indications for IOL. For conditions where clinical equipoise regarding timing of birth may still exist, such as suspected macrosomia and elevated BMI, researchers and funding agencies should prioritise studies of sufficient power that can provide quality evidence to guide care in these situations.