Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://repository.monashhealth.org/monashhealthjspui/handle/1/36087
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSoldatos G.en
dc.contributor.authorWallace E.M.en
dc.contributor.authorAbell S.K.en
dc.contributor.authorBoyle J.A.en
dc.contributor.authorEarnest A.en
dc.contributor.authorEngland P.en
dc.contributor.authorNankervis A.en
dc.contributor.authorRanasinha S.en
dc.contributor.authorJ Teede H.en
dc.contributor.authorZoungas S.en
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-14T12:13:42Zen
dc.date.available2021-05-14T12:13:42Zen
dc.date.copyright2019en
dc.date.created20190211en
dc.date.issued2019-02-11en
dc.identifier.citationDiabetic Medicine. 36 (2) (pp 177-183), 2019. Date of Publication: Februaryy 2019.en
dc.identifier.issn0742-3071en
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.monashhealth.org/monashhealthjspui/handle/1/36087en
dc.description.abstractAim: With no current randomized trials, we explored the impact of tight compared with standard treatment targets on pregnancy outcomes in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Method(s): This cohort study of singleton births >= 28 weeks' gestation was conducted at two major Australian maternity services (2009-2013). Standardized maternal, neonatal and birth outcomes were examined using routine healthcare data and compared for women with GDM at Service One (n = 2885) and Service Two (n = 1887). Services applied different treatment targets: Service One (standard targets, reference group) fasting < 5.5 mmol/l, 2-h postprandial < 7.0 mmol/l; Service Two (tight targets) fasting < 5.0 mmol/l, 2-h postprandial < 6.7 mmol/l. Multivariable regression with propensity score adjustment was used to examine associations between targets and outcomes. Result(s): GDM prevalence and insulin use were 7.9% and 31% at Service One, and 5.7% and 46% at Service Two. There were no differences in primary outcomes: birthweight > 90th centile [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-1.30] and < 10th centile (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.01), or secondary outcomes gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia, shoulder dystocia or a perinatal composite. Service Two with tight targets had increased induction of labour (OR 3.63, 95% CI 3.17-4.16), elective Caesarean section (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.37-2.23) and Apgar scores < 7 at 5 min (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.05-2.25), decreased hypoglycaemia (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.94]), jaundice (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35-0.63) and respiratory distress (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.47-0.98). Conclusion(s): Tight GDM treatment targets were associated with greater insulin use and no difference in primary birthweight outcomes. The service with tight targets had higher obstetric intervention, lower rates of reported hypoglycaemia, jaundice, respiratory distress and lower Apgar scores. High-quality interventional data are required before tight treatment targets can be implemented.Copyright © 2018 Diabetes UKen
dc.languageEnglishen
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden
dc.relation.ispartofDiabetic Medicineen
dc.titleImpact of different glycaemic treatment targets on pregnancy outcomes in gestational diabetes.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.affiliationObstetrics and Gynaecology (Monash Women's)-
dc.type.studyortrialObservational study (cohort, case-control, cross sectional or survey)-
dc.identifier.doihttp://monash.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dme.13799en
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen
dc.identifier.pubmedid30102812 [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=30102812]en
dc.identifier.source623896325en
dc.identifier.institution(Abell, Boyle, Earnest, Ranasinha, Soldatos, Zoungas, J Teede) Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia (Abell, Soldatos, Zoungas, J Teede) Diabetes and Vascular Medicine Unit, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia (Boyle, Wallace) Monash Women's Services, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia (Earnest, Ranasinha) Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia (England) Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia (Nankervis) Diabetes Unit, Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia (Wallace) The Ritchie Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australiaen
dc.description.addressH. J Teede, Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. E-mail: helena.teede@monash.eduen
dc.description.publicationstatusEmbaseen
dc.rights.statementCopyright 2019 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.en
dc.identifier.authoremailJ Teede H.; helena.teede@monash.eduen
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairetypeArticle-
crisitem.author.deptEndocrinology-
crisitem.author.deptObstetrics and Gynaecology (Monash Women's)-
Appears in Collections:Articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

70
checked on Feb 6, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in Monash Health Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.