Person:

Ralston, Steven Joseph

Abstract Objective:: To compare characteristics and outcomes of women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) by the newer one-step glucose tolerance test and those diagnosed with the traditional two-step method. Research design and methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of women with GDM who delivered in 2010–2011. Data are reported as proportion or median (interquartile range) and were compared using a Chi-square, Fisher's exact or Wilcoxon rank sum test based on data type. Results:: Of 235 women with GDM, 55.7% were diagnosed using the two-step method and 44.3% with the one-step method. The groups had similar demographics and GDM risk factors. The two-step method group was diagnosed with GDM one week later [27.0 (24.0–29.0) weeks versus 26.0 (24.0–28.0 weeks); p = 0.13]. The groups had similar median weight gain per week before diagnosis. After diagnosis, women in the one-step method group had significantly higher median weight gain per week [0.67 pounds/week (0.31–1.0) versus 0.56 pounds/week (0.15–0.89); p = 0.047]. In the one-step method group more women had suspected macrosomia (11.7% versus 5.3%, p = 0.07) and more neonates had a birth weight >4000 g (13.6% versus 7.5%, p = 0.13); however, these differences were not statistically significant. Other pregnancy and neonatal complications were similar. Conclusions:: Women diagnosed with the one-step method gained more weight per week after GDM diagnosis and had a non-statistically significant increased risk for suspected macrosomia. Our data suggest the one-step method identifies women with at least equally high risk as the two-step method.

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of a universal cervical length screening program on the incidence of antepartum interventions. Study Design This retrospective cohort study included women delivering ≥ 20 weeks of gestation with singleton pregnancies before and after implementing universal cervical length screening. Antepartum interventions included admission for threatened preterm birth, ≥ 2 cervical length measurements, cervical cerclage, neonatology consultation, betamethasone, antibiotic administration for preterm premature rupture of membranes, and tocolysis. Results: There were 1,131 women—506 before the screening program (unexposed) and 625 afterward (exposed). The screening program resulted in significantly more women screened (3.0 vs. 69.9%, p < 0.0001). The exposed group was more likely to undergo ≥ 1 intervention (20.0 vs. 9.5%, p < 0.0001); specifically, admission for threatened preterm birth (3.8 vs. 1.8%, p = 0.04) and ≥ 2 cervical measurements (11.2 vs. 2.0%, p < 0.001). Other interventions were similar between groups (all p ≥ 0.06). Median gestation length was significantly longer in the exposed (39.6 weeks [interquartile, IQR: 38.6–40.4] vs. 39.0 weeks [IQR: 38.0–40.0, p < 0.001]); however, preterm delivery incidence was unaffected (9.4 vs. 10.9%, p = 0.43). Remaining neonatal outcomes were similar (all p ≥ 0.14). Conclusion: Implementing universal cervical length screening significantly increased the proportion of women undergoing ≥ 1 antepartum intervention. With the exception of a modestly prolonged gestation, other outcomes were unaffected.