Does fasting plasma glucose values 5.1-5.6 mmol/l in the first trimester of gestation a matter?

Objectives

The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of treatment on pregnancy outcomes among women who had fasting plasma glucose (FPG) 5.1-5.6 mmol/l in the first trimester of pregnancy.

Methods

We performed a secondary-analysis of a randomized community non-inferiority trial of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening. All pregnant women with FPG values range 5.1-5.6 mmol/l in the first trimester of gestation were included in the present study (n=3297) and classified to either the (i) intervention group who received treatment for GDM along with usual prenatal care (n=1,198), (ii) control group who received usual-prenatal-care (n=2,099). Macrosomia/large for gestational age (LGA) and primary cesarean-section (C-S) were considered as primary-outcomes. A modified-Poisson-regression for binary outcome data with a log link function and robust error variance was used to RR (95%CI) for the associations between GDM status and incidence of pregnancy outcomes.

Results

The mean maternal age and BMI of pregnant women in both study groups were similar. There were no statistically significant differences in the adjusted risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including macrosomia, primary C-S, preterm birth, hyperbilirubinemia, preeclampsia, NICU-admission, birth trauma, and LBW both groups.

Conclusions

It is found that treating women with first-trimester FPG values of 5.1-5.6 mmol/l could not improve adverse pregnancy outcomes including macrosomia, Primary C-S, Preterm birth, hypoglycemia, hypocalcemia, preeclampsia, NICU admission, Birth trauma and LBW. Therefore, extrapolating the FPG cut-off point of the second trimester to the first -which has been proposed by the IADPSG, might therefore not be appropriate.

Clinical Trial Registration

https://www.irct.ir/trial/518, identifier IRCT138707081281N1.

A Cluster Randomized Noninferiority Field Trial of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Screening

CONTEXT

Although it is well-acknowledged that gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with the increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes, the optimal strategy for screening and diagnosis of GDM is still a matter of debate.

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to demonstrate the noninferiority of less strict GDM screening criteria compared with the strict International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria with respect to maternal and neonatal outcomes.

METHODS

A cluster randomized noninferiority field trial was conducted on 35 528 pregnant women; they were scheduled to have 2 phases of GDM screening based on 5 different prespecified protocols including fasting plasma glucose in the first trimester with threshold of 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL) (protocols A, D) or 5.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) (protocols B, C, E) and either a 1-step (GDM is defined if one of the plasma glucose values is exceeded [protocol A and C] or 2 or more exceeded values are needed [protocol B]) or 2-step approach (protocols D, E) in the second trimester. Guidelines for treatment of GDM were consistent with all protocols. Primary outcomes of the study were the prevalence of macrosomia and primary cesarean section (CS). The null hypothesis that less strict protocols are inferior to protocol A (IADPSG) was tested with a noninferiority margin effect (odds ratio) of 1.7.

RESULTS

The percentages of pregnant women diagnosed with GDM and assigned to protocols A, B, C, D, and E were 21.9%, 10.5%, 12.1%, 19.4%, and 8.1%, respectively. Intention-to-treat analyses satisfying the noninferiority of the less strict protocols of B, C, D, and E compared with protocol A. However, noninferiority was not shown for primary CS comparing protocol E with A. The odds ratios (95% CI) for macrosomia and CS were: B (1.01 [0.95-1.08]; 0.85 [0.56-1.28], C (1.03 [0.73-1.47]; 1.16 [0.88-1.51]), D (0.89 [0.68-1.17]; 0.94 [0.61-1.44]), and E (1.05 [0.65-1.69]; 1.33 [0.82-2.00]) vs A. There were no statistically significant differences in the adjusted odds of adverse pregnancy outcomes in the 2-step compared with the 1-step screening approaches, considering multiplicity adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

The IADPSG GDM definition significantly increased the prevalence of GDM diagnosis. However, the less strict approaches were not inferior to other criteria in terms of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Assessment of Computer Regulation Thermography (CRT) as a Complemetrary Diagnostic tool for Breast Cancer Patient

Background:

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer in women demanding accurate diagnosis to take remedial measures to treat.

Objective:

Comparing the diagnostic capability of the computer regulation thermography (CRT), as a novel and safe diagnostic procedure, with common methods including sonography, mammography and clinical examinations for diagnosing breast cancer in suspicious patients against pathology as the gold standard.

Material and Methods:

In this prospective clinical trial study, out of 97 referred patients, 44 meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. The selected patients were subjected to mammography, sonography, CRT and clinical examinations. Then, the patients showing suspicious symptoms of breast cancer underwent pathological examinations.

Results:

CRT indicated a higher specificity compared to mammography and sonography (78.9% vs. 71.4% and 47.0%, respectively). However, CRT sensitivity was lower than those of mammography, sonography and clinical examination (52% vs. 70.6%, 82.4% and 84.0%). Furthermore, CRT accuracy was lower than mammography, sonography and clinical examination (63.6% vs. 70.9%, 64.7% and 88.6%). While CRT positive prediction value (PPV) was higher than those of mammography and sonography, it was lower than that of clinical examination (76.5% vs. 75%, 60.9% and 95.5%). The negative prediction value (NPV) of CRT was less than all other modalities (55.5% vs. 66.7%, 72.7% and 81.8% for the clinical examination, mammography and sonography, respectively).

Conclusion:

Although CRT with a lower sensitivity and higher specificity, cannot be recommended to be used as a definitive diagnostic tool for breast cancer patients, it can be used as a complementary method with other methods to increase the diagnostic accuracy of suspicious patients.

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Low Birth Weight in the Southeast of Iran

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence and related factors of low birth weight (LBW) in the Southeast of Iran.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was carried out in Kerman province. Data were collected from Iranian Maternal and Neonatal Network at public and private hospitals. All live births from March 2014 to March 2015 considered as the source population. The risk factors including maternal age, gravida, parity, abortion, pregnancy risk factors, maternal nationality, maternal education, maternity insurance, place of living, consanguinity, neonate sex, preterm labor, place of birth, delivery manager, and delivery type were compared between LBW and normal birth weight groups.

RESULTS

The prevalence of LBW was 9.4% in the present study. Preterm labor (odds ratio [OR]: 22.06; P < 0.001), neonate female sex (OR: 1.41; P < 0.001), low parity (OR: 0.85; P < 0.001), pregnancy age <18 years (OR: 1.26; P = 0.012), pregnancy age >35 years (OR: 1.21; P = 0.001), delivery by cesarean section (OR: 1.17; P = 0.002), pregnancy risk factors (OR: 1.67; P < 0.001), maternal illiteracy (OR: 1.91; P < 0.001), living in the rural area (OR: 1.19; P < 0.001), consanguineous (OR: 1.08; P = 0.025), and delivery by obstetrician (OR: 1.12; P = 0.029) were identified as significant factors associated with LBW in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevention of preterm labor, consanguineous marriage, pregnancy age <18 and >35 years old, and maternal medical risk factors are some critical interventions to reduce its burden. Increasing the access to high-quality health-care services in rural and deprived areas is another effective strategy for the prevention of LBW.

Automated responsiveness test and bispectral index monitoring during propofol and propofol/N2O sedation

BACKGROUND

Sedation practice, especially when non-anaesthesia personnel are involved, requires efficient anaesthetic depth monitoring. Therefore, we used prediction probability (PK) to evaluate the performance of the bispectral index (BIS) of the EEG and automated responsiveness test (ART) to predict sedation depth and loss of subject's responsiveness during propofol sedation, with and without N2O.

METHODS

Twenty volunteers were studied during propofol administration with (N2O) and without (Air) N2O. The protocol consisted of sequential 15-min cycles. After a control period, propofol was infused to a target effect-site concentration of 0.25 microg/ml (N2O) or 1.5 microg/ml (Air), which was subsequently increased by 0.25 or 0.5 microg/ml, respectively, until loss of responsiveness was detected by loss of response to command [observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score <or= 2].

RESULTS

Deeply sedated patients did not respond to ART indicating that the sensitivity was 1.0 with or without N2O. The specificity of ART was 0.24 with Air and 0.98 with N2O. The BIS was better than ART in predicting OAA/S score (PK = 0.84 vs. 0.77) and loss of responsiveness (PK = 0.87 vs. 0.69) during the Air trial. Nitrous oxide decreased the performance of BIS in predicting OAA/S score (PK = 0.76), but increased the performance of ART to predict loss of responsiveness (PK = 0.85).

CONCLUSION

BIS and ART comparably predict sedation and loss of responsiveness. However, ART, because of its resistance to false-normal responses, might prove to be more useful on an individual patient basis - especially in the presence of agents that impair BIS sensitivity.

A new system to target the effect-site during propofol sedation

BACKGROUND

We evaluated a new, integrated, covariate-adjusted, target-controlled infusion system during sedation with propofol combined with 50% nitrous oxide (N2O) and with propofol only (Air).

METHODS

The protocol consisted of sequential 15-minute cycles in 20 volunteers. After a 15-minute control period, propofol was infused to an initial target effect-site concentration of 0.25 microg x ml-1 (N2O) or 1.5 microg x ml-1 (Air). Subsequently, the target effect-site concentration was increased by 0.25 (N2O) or 0.5 microg x ml-1 (Air) for 15 min This sequence was continued until the volunteers lost consciousness as defined by an Observer's Assessment Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) score = 2.

RESULTS

Venous plasma propofol concentrations at the beginning(9 elapsed minutes) and end(15 elapsed minutes) of the pseudo-steady state period differed by only 0.00 +/- 0.16 microg x ml-1 (P = 0.78) during the N2O and 0.00 +/- 0.25 microg x ml-1 (P = 0.91) during the Air trial. OAA/S scores and bispectral index values, as surrogate measures of pharmacodynamic effect, were not different during this time in either trial. The median(25th, 75th percentiles) of the median performance error (%) was -13 (-24, -1) during the N2O and -18 (-26, -9) during the Air trial. The median absolute performance error (%) was 17 (10, 24) in the N2O and 22 (12, 28) in Air trial. The divergence (%/h) was -10 (-26, 4) in the N2O and 14 (-21, 26) in Air trial. The wobble was 7 (5, 10) in the N2O and 6 (4, 8) in the Air trial.

CONCLUSIONS

When tested with venous blood samples, our TCI system for propofol, using a covariate-adjusted, integrated pharmacokinetic model to target effect-site concentrations, demonstrated a clinically acceptable accuracy and stability during mild to moderate sedation.

Neither nalbuphine nor atropine possess special antishivering activity

The special antishivering action of meperidine may be mediated by its kappa or anticholinergic actions. We therefore tested the hypotheses that nalbuphine or atropine decreases the shivering threshold more than the vasoconstriction threshold. Eight volunteers were each evaluated on four separate study days: 1) control (no drug), 2) small-dose nalbuphine (0.2 microg/mL), 3) large-dose nalbuphine (0.4 microg/mL), and 4) atropine (1-mg bolus and 0.5 mg/h). Body temperature was increased until the patient sweated and then decreased until the patient shivered. Nalbuphine produced concentration-dependent decreases (mean +/- SD) in the sweating (-2.5 +/- 1.7 degrees C. microg(-1). mL; r(2) = 0.75 +/- 0.25), vasoconstriction (-2.6 +/- 1.7 degrees C. microg(-1). mL; r(2) = 0.75 +/- 0.25), and shivering (-2.8 +/- 1.7 degrees C. microg(-1). mL; r(2) = 0.79 +/- 0.23) thresholds. Atropine significantly increased the thresholds for sweating (1.0 degrees C +/- 0.4 degrees C), vasoconstriction (0.9 degrees C +/- 0.3 degrees C), and shivering (0.7 degrees C +/- 0.3 degrees C). Nalbuphine reduced the vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds comparably. This differs markedly from meperidine, which impairs shivering twice as much as vasoconstriction. Atropine increased all thresholds and would thus be expected to facilitate shivering. Our results thus fail to support the theory that activation of kappa-opioid or central anticholinergic receptors contribute to meperidine's special antishivering action.

Automated responsiveness test (ART) predicts loss of consciousness and adverse physiologic responses during propofol conscious sedation

BACKGROUND

The authors evaluated a device designed to provide conscious sedation with propofol (propofol-air), or propofol combined with 50% nitrous oxide (N2O; propofol-N2O). An element of this device is the automated responsiveness test (ART), a method for confirming that patients remain conscious. The authors tested the hypotheses that the ART predicts loss of consciousness and that failure to respond to the ART precedes sedation-induced respiratory or hemodynamic toxicity.

METHODS

The protocol consisted of sequential 15-min cycles in 20 volunteers. After a 15-min control period, propofol was infused to an initial target effect-site concentration of 0.0 microg/ml with N2O or 1.5 microg/ml with air. Subsequently, the propofol target effect-site concentration was increased by a designated increment (0.25 and 0.5 microg/ml) and the process repeated. This sequence was continued until loss of consciousness, as defined by an Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) score of 10/20 or less, or until an adverse physiologic event was detected.

RESULTS

The OAA/S score at which only 50% of the volunteers were able to respond to the ART (P50) during propofol-N2O was 11.1 of 20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.6-11.8); the analogous P50 was 11.8 of 20 (95% CI: 11.4-12.3) with propofol-air. Failure to respond to the ART occurred at a plasma propofol concentration of 0.7 +/- 0.6 microg/ml with propofol-N2O and 1.6 +/- 0.6 microg/ml with propofol-air, whereas loss of consciousness occurred at 1.2 +/- 0.8 microg/ml and 1.9 +/- 0.7 microg/ml, respectively. There were no false-normal ART responses.

CONCLUSION

The ART can guide individual titration of propofol because failure to respond to responsiveness testing precedes loss of consciousness and is not susceptible to false-normal responses. The use of N2O with propofol for conscious sedation decreases the predictive accuracy of the ART.