Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Abstracts - RGCON 2016
Case Report
Commentary
Editorial
Erratum
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Original Article
Point of Technique
Review Article
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Abstracts - RGCON 2016
Case Report
Commentary
Editorial
Erratum
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Original Article
Point of Technique
Review Article
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Abstracts - RGCON 2016
Case Report
Commentary
Editorial
Erratum
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Original Article
Point of Technique
Review Article
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Abstracts - RGCON 2016
02 (
Suppl 1
); S120-S120
doi:
10.1055/s-0039-1685382

Miscellaneous: Poster Abstract: One step versus two step screening for gestational diabetes mellitus

Licence
This open access article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the incidence, maternal and fetal outcomes of gestational diabetes mellitus using one step vs. two step as a screening procedure.

Methodology:

A prospective randomized trial involving screening of 1000 pregnant women for gestational diabetes mellitus was conducted. Women were divided in two groups (500 each). Group A comprised of patients screened with two step approach (ACOG recommendation), Group B comprised of women screened by one step method (IADPSG criteria). Women diagnosed with ‘gestational diabetes’ were followed in antenatal clinic and incidence of GDM, maternal and fetal outcome between two groups were analyzed using SPSS.

Results:

The incidence of GDM was almost double using one step approach versus two step which was 19.2% and 11.8% respectively. Maternal outcomes were comparable in both the groups except the risk of preterm delivery which was 2.5 times more in group A than group B (odds ratio = 2.43 95% CI = 1.01-5.79). Further fetal outcomes were also comparable except neonatal hypoglycemia which was seen in 29.31% in group A vs. 7.4% in group B. In the group B 15 patients (15.8%) patients with GDM (based on FBS ≥92 mg/dl at 1st ANC visit) showed clinical symptoms & blood sugars in hypoglycemic range on MNT requiring resumption of normal diet.

Conclusion:

The incidence of GDM using IADPSG criteria was almost double versus ACOG criteria. Maternal and fetal outcomes were comparable except in 15.8% women diagnosed as GDM (using FBS ≥92 mg/dl at 1st ANC visit as per IADPSG) suffered from hypoglycemia. A large trial is being proposed before these criteria are adopted.


Fulltext Views
157

PDF downloads
66
View/Download PDF
Download Citations
BibTeX
RIS
Show Sections