Intrapartum Glycemic Control with Insulin Infusion versus Rotating Fluids: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY American journal of perinatology Pub Date : 2025-02-10 DOI:10.1055/a-2510-4906
Maranda Sullivan, Kajal Angras, Victoria Boyd, Amanda J Young, A Dhanya Mackeen, Michael J Paglia
{"title":"Intrapartum Glycemic Control with Insulin Infusion versus Rotating Fluids: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Maranda Sullivan, Kajal Angras, Victoria Boyd, Amanda J Young, A Dhanya Mackeen, Michael J Paglia","doi":"10.1055/a-2510-4906","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> This study aimed to evaluate rotating intravenous (IV) fluids compared with insulin infusion for maternal intrapartum glycemic control of neonatal blood glucose within 2 hours of birth.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong> This randomized controlled trial compared the use of rotating IV fluids to continuous insulin infusion for intrapartum glycemic control for patients with type II diabetes mellitus (DM) or medication-controlled gestational diabetes (A2GDM). A sample size of 74 participants was studied to detect a 10-mg/dL difference in neonatal blood glucose within 2 hours of birth between the groups with a standard deviation of 15, 80% power, and α 0.05. Secondary neonatal outcomes included neonatal blood glucose within 24 hours after birth, Apgar < 7 at 5 minutes, and a composite including neonatal hypoglycemia, NICU admission, hyperbilirubinemia, and respiratory distress syndrome. Secondary maternal outcomes included intrapartum hypoglycemia, blood glucose immediately prior to delivery, mode of delivery, and postpartum complications. Both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> A total of 114 patients were randomized, 57 in each arm. For the PP analysis, 51 patients were analyzed in the rotating IV fluids arm and 32 patients in the insulin infusion arm. There was no significant difference in neonatal blood glucose within 2 hours of birth when rotating IV fluids were used (ITT: 54.5 mg/dL [IQR: 42.5, 72.5], PP: 56.0 mg/dL [IQR: 42.0, 76.0]) when compared with an insulin infusion (ITT: 59.0 mg/dL [IQR: 41.0, 69.0], PP: 62.5 mg/dL [IQR: 44.5, 68.5], <i>p</i> = 0.89 [ITT] and <i>p</i> = 0.68 [PP]). No significant differences were noted in secondary outcomes. The median intrapartum maternal blood glucose was 98.5 mg/dL (IQR: 90.5, 105.0) in the rotating fluids arm and 96.3 mg/dL (IQR: 90.0, 108.5) in the insulin infusion arm (<i>p</i> = 0.96), and the rate of neonatal hypoglycemia was 11.8 versus 15.6%, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.61) in the PP analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> There was no difference in neonatal blood glucose within 2 hours of birth when rotating IV fluids were used for intrapartum glycemic control compared with a continuous insulin infusion.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>· There is no optimal option for maternal glycemic control in labor.. · Maternal glycemic control was comparable in the two study arms.. · There was no difference in neonatal blood glucose between study arms..</p>","PeriodicalId":7584,"journal":{"name":"American journal of perinatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2510-4906","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective:  This study aimed to evaluate rotating intravenous (IV) fluids compared with insulin infusion for maternal intrapartum glycemic control of neonatal blood glucose within 2 hours of birth.

Study design:  This randomized controlled trial compared the use of rotating IV fluids to continuous insulin infusion for intrapartum glycemic control for patients with type II diabetes mellitus (DM) or medication-controlled gestational diabetes (A2GDM). A sample size of 74 participants was studied to detect a 10-mg/dL difference in neonatal blood glucose within 2 hours of birth between the groups with a standard deviation of 15, 80% power, and α 0.05. Secondary neonatal outcomes included neonatal blood glucose within 24 hours after birth, Apgar < 7 at 5 minutes, and a composite including neonatal hypoglycemia, NICU admission, hyperbilirubinemia, and respiratory distress syndrome. Secondary maternal outcomes included intrapartum hypoglycemia, blood glucose immediately prior to delivery, mode of delivery, and postpartum complications. Both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were performed.

Results:  A total of 114 patients were randomized, 57 in each arm. For the PP analysis, 51 patients were analyzed in the rotating IV fluids arm and 32 patients in the insulin infusion arm. There was no significant difference in neonatal blood glucose within 2 hours of birth when rotating IV fluids were used (ITT: 54.5 mg/dL [IQR: 42.5, 72.5], PP: 56.0 mg/dL [IQR: 42.0, 76.0]) when compared with an insulin infusion (ITT: 59.0 mg/dL [IQR: 41.0, 69.0], PP: 62.5 mg/dL [IQR: 44.5, 68.5], p = 0.89 [ITT] and p = 0.68 [PP]). No significant differences were noted in secondary outcomes. The median intrapartum maternal blood glucose was 98.5 mg/dL (IQR: 90.5, 105.0) in the rotating fluids arm and 96.3 mg/dL (IQR: 90.0, 108.5) in the insulin infusion arm (p = 0.96), and the rate of neonatal hypoglycemia was 11.8 versus 15.6%, respectively (p = 0.61) in the PP analysis.

Conclusion:  There was no difference in neonatal blood glucose within 2 hours of birth when rotating IV fluids were used for intrapartum glycemic control compared with a continuous insulin infusion.

Key points: · There is no optimal option for maternal glycemic control in labor.. · Maternal glycemic control was comparable in the two study arms.. · There was no difference in neonatal blood glucose between study arms..

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
American journal of perinatology
American journal of perinatology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
302
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Perinatology is an international, peer-reviewed, and indexed journal publishing 14 issues a year dealing with original research and topical reviews. It is the definitive forum for specialists in obstetrics, neonatology, perinatology, and maternal/fetal medicine, with emphasis on bridging the different fields. The focus is primarily on clinical and translational research, clinical and technical advances in diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment as well as evidence-based reviews. Topics of interest include epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and management of maternal, fetal, and neonatal diseases. Manuscripts on new technology, NICU set-ups, and nursing topics are published to provide a broad survey of important issues in this field. All articles undergo rigorous peer review, with web-based submission, expedited turn-around, and availability of electronic publication. The American Journal of Perinatology is accompanied by AJP Reports - an Open Access journal for case reports in neonatology and maternal/fetal medicine.
期刊最新文献
The Relationship between Various Measures of Perinatal Quality. The Use of Premedication for Intubating Very Low Birth Weight Infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Results of a National Survey. The Impact of Antibiotics on Latency When Given at the Time of Membrane Rupture Before Viability. Intrapartum Glycemic Control with Insulin Infusion versus Rotating Fluids: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Maternal and Neonatal Risk Factors Associated with Positive Toxicology Results.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1