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":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>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>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>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>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>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>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>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>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":6990,"journal":{"name":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","volume":"104 5","pages":"839-849"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aogs.15098","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/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.
妊娠期糖尿病(GDM)筛查的最佳方法仍然存在争议。自2003年以来,所有加拿大指南都建议普遍进行GDM筛查。一些国家,如瑞典,在已有危险因素的人群中使用选择性GDM筛查。在加拿大,产前护理模式(助产士、全科医生或产科医生)部分是自我选择的;因此,不同护理模式的患者群体可能不同。尽管加拿大有普遍的GDM筛查政策,但在助产士主导的护理中,筛查不依从的情况更为常见。我们根据该人群的GDM筛查依从性与不依从性检查围产期结局。材料和方法:我们使用来自加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省的相关行政数据进行了一项基于人群的单胎妊娠和婴儿队列研究。我们将研究限制在接受助产士领导的产前护理的孕妇中,这些孕妇的GDM筛查不依从发生率更高,而且更有可能是出于选择。我们根据GDM筛查估计调整风险比(aRR),比较妊娠期间未进行葡萄糖检测(21.4%)和早期葡萄糖检测结果:在这个83522例妊娠的队列中,妊娠期间未进行葡萄糖检测与LGA和剖宫产的风险较低相关(LGA aRR 0.82;95% ci 0.79-0.86;剖宫产aRR 0.75;95% CI 0.72-0.78)和更高的死产和SGA风险(死产aRR 1.6;95% ci 1.0-2.2;SGA aRR 1.2;95% CI 1.1-1.3)。死产风险进一步升高(aRR 2.5;在有GDM危险因素的地层中,95% CI 1.2-5.0),而在没有危险因素的地层中则没有,而在各个地层中,SGA风险持续升高。结论:不遵守GDM筛查指南与胎儿过度生长相关结局(LGA、剖宫产)的风险较低相关,但死产和SGA的风险较高。
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.