Women With Impaired Glucose Tolerance During Pregnancy Have Significantly Poor Pregnancy Outcomes

  1. Xilin Yang, PHD12,
  2. Bridget Hsu-Hage, PHD1,
  3. Hong Zhang, MD3,
  4. Cuiping Zhang, MD3,
  5. Yanni Zhang, MD3 and
  6. Changjun Zhang, MD3
  1. 1Department of Rural Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
  2. 2Tianjin Centre of Disease Control and Prevention, Tianjin, China
  3. 3Tianjin Institute for Women’s Health, Tianjin, China

    Abstract

    OBJECTIVE—This article tests the hypothesis that women with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) have the same pregnancy outcomes as those of their counterparts with normal glucose tolerance.

    RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—From December 1998 to December 1999, 84 of 90 antenatal care base units (ACBUs) under the Tianjin Antenatal Care Network in China participated in the first screening program for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). A total of 9,471 pregnant women under the care of participating ACBUs were screened. Of the women screened, 154 were positive for IGT. Of the 154 women, 102 opted for conventional obstetric care. The comparison group was 302 women of normal glucose tolerance (NGT). The initial screening consisted of a 50-g 1-h glucose test, and was carried out at 26–30 gestational weeks. Women with a serum glucose ≥7.8 mmol/l were followed up with a 75-g 2-h oral glucose tolerance test. The World Health Organization’s diagnostic criteria for GDM were used.

    RESULTS—Women with IGT were at increased risk for premature rupture of membranes (P-ROM) (odds ratio [OR] 10.07; 95% CI 2.90–34.93); preterm birth (6.42; 1.46–28.34); breech presentation (3.47; 1.11–10.84); and high birth weight (90th percentile or 4,000 g) (2.42; 1.07–5.46); adjusting for maternal age, pregravid BMI, hospital levels, and other confounding factors.

    CONCLUSIONS—The presence of IGT in pregnancy is predictive of poor pregnancy outcomes.

    Footnotes

    • Address correspondence and reprint requests to Associate Professor Bridget Hsu-Hage, Department of Rural Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Melbourne, P.O. Box 6500, Shepparton, Victoria 3632, Australia. E-mail: bhhage{at}unimelb.edu.au.

      Received for publication 7 February 2002 and accepted in revised form 11 May 2002.

      A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

    « Previous | Next Article »Table of Contents