Perinatal outcomes following nonadherence to guideline-based screening for gestational diabetes: A population-based cohort study.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2025-03-17 DOI:10.1111/aogs.15098
Elizabeth Nethery, Kelly Pickerill, Luba Butska, Michelle Turner, Jennifer A Hutcheon, Patricia A Janssen, Laura Schummers
{"title":"Perinatal outcomes following nonadherence to guideline-based screening for gestational diabetes: A population-based cohort study.","authors":"Elizabeth Nethery, Kelly Pickerill, Luba Butska, Michelle Turner, Jennifer A Hutcheon, Patricia A Janssen, Laura Schummers","doi":"10.1111/aogs.15098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The optimal approach for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening remains controversial. Since 2003, all Canadian guidelines have recommended universal GDM screening. Some countries, such as Sweden, use selective GDM screening among those with pre-existing risk factors. In Canada, antenatal care model (midwife, general practitioner or obstetrician) is partially self-selected; thus, patient populations may differ between care models. Despite the Canadian policy of universal GDM screening, screening nonadherence is more frequent in midwife-led care. We examined perinatal outcomes according to GDM screening adherence vs. nonadherence in this population.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We conducted a population-based cohort study of singleton pregnancies and infants using linked administrative data from the province of British Columbia, Canada. We restricted the study to pregnancies with midwife-led antenatal care where GDM screening nonadherence occurred more frequently and was more likely by choice. We estimated adjusted risk ratios (aRR) according to GDM screening, comparing no glucose tests during pregnancy (21.4%), early glucose testing <20 weeks (5.5%), and glucose testing with alternate methods ≥20 weeks (4.0%) vs. normoglycemic pregnancies (69%) using multivariable log binomial regression. We stratified by known GDM risk factors. Our primary outcome was large for gestational age (LGA) infants. Secondary outcomes were small for gestational age infants (SGA), stillbirth, 5-min Apgar <7, birth trauma, preterm birth, cesarean birth, and obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this cohort of 83 522 pregnancies, having no glucose tests in pregnancy was associated with lower risks of LGA and cesarean birth (LGA aRR 0.82; 95% CI 0.79-0.86; cesarean birth aRR 0.75; 95% CI 0.72-0.78) and higher risks of stillbirth and SGA (stillbirth aRR 1.6; 95% CI 1.0-2.2; SGA aRR 1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.3) compared with normoglycemic pregnancies. Stillbirth risks were further elevated (aRR 2.5; 95% CI 1.2-5.0) in strata with GDM risk factors, but not in strata without risk factors, while higher SGA risks persisted across strata.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Nonadherence to GDM screening guidelines was associated with lower risks for excess fetal growth-related outcomes (LGA, cesarean birth), but higher risks of stillbirth and SGA.</p>","PeriodicalId":6990,"journal":{"name":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.15098","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The optimal approach for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening remains controversial. Since 2003, all Canadian guidelines have recommended universal GDM screening. Some countries, such as Sweden, use selective GDM screening among those with pre-existing risk factors. In Canada, antenatal care model (midwife, general practitioner or obstetrician) is partially self-selected; thus, patient populations may differ between care models. Despite the Canadian policy of universal GDM screening, screening nonadherence is more frequent in midwife-led care. We examined perinatal outcomes according to GDM screening adherence vs. nonadherence in this population.

Material and methods: We conducted a population-based cohort study of singleton pregnancies and infants using linked administrative data from the province of British Columbia, Canada. We restricted the study to pregnancies with midwife-led antenatal care where GDM screening nonadherence occurred more frequently and was more likely by choice. We estimated adjusted risk ratios (aRR) according to GDM screening, comparing no glucose tests during pregnancy (21.4%), early glucose testing <20 weeks (5.5%), and glucose testing with alternate methods ≥20 weeks (4.0%) vs. normoglycemic pregnancies (69%) using multivariable log binomial regression. We stratified by known GDM risk factors. Our primary outcome was large for gestational age (LGA) infants. Secondary outcomes were small for gestational age infants (SGA), stillbirth, 5-min Apgar <7, birth trauma, preterm birth, cesarean birth, and obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI).

Results: In this cohort of 83 522 pregnancies, having no glucose tests in pregnancy was associated with lower risks of LGA and cesarean birth (LGA aRR 0.82; 95% CI 0.79-0.86; cesarean birth aRR 0.75; 95% CI 0.72-0.78) and higher risks of stillbirth and SGA (stillbirth aRR 1.6; 95% CI 1.0-2.2; SGA aRR 1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.3) compared with normoglycemic pregnancies. Stillbirth risks were further elevated (aRR 2.5; 95% CI 1.2-5.0) in strata with GDM risk factors, but not in strata without risk factors, while higher SGA risks persisted across strata.

Conclusions: Nonadherence to GDM screening guidelines was associated with lower risks for excess fetal growth-related outcomes (LGA, cesarean birth), but higher risks of stillbirth and SGA.

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
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
4.70%
发文量
180
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Published monthly, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica is an international journal dedicated to providing the very latest information on the results of both clinical, basic and translational research work related to all aspects of women’s health from around the globe. The journal regularly publishes commentaries, reviews, and original articles on a wide variety of topics including: gynecology, pregnancy, birth, female urology, gynecologic oncology, fertility and reproductive biology.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Why not vaginal?-Nationwide trends and surgical outcomes in low-risk hysterectomies: A retrospective cohort study. Even low levels of anticardiolipin antibodies are associated with pregnancy-related complications: A monocentric cohort study. Perinatal outcomes following nonadherence to guideline-based screening for gestational diabetes: A population-based cohort study. Influence of instrument choice on fear of childbirth after assisted vaginal delivery: A secondary analysis of the Bergen birth study.
×
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