Wong Tang, Barnes Robyn A, Ross Glynis P, Cheung Ngai W, Flack Jeff R
Diabetes Centre, Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital, 68 Eldridge Rd, Bankstown, NSW, 2200, Australia.
Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Diabetologia. 2017 Mar;60(3):416-423. doi: 10.1007/s00125-016-4173-3. Epub 2016 Dec 9.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Our aim was to study the relationship between excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) according to Institute of Medicine (IOM) targets and perinatal outcomes, and examine whether modifying targets may improve outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).
This was a retrospective cohort study of all GDM pregnancies from 1992 to 2013. ORs were calculated for associations between excessive GWG (EGWG) using IOM targets and adverse pregnancy outcomes. ORs were then adjusted for maternal age, gestational age at diagnosis, prepregnancy BMI, gravidity, parity, ethnicity, antenatal fasting blood glucose level (BGL), 2 h BGL and HbA. BMI was categorised into underweight (<18.5 kg/m), healthy weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m) and obese (≥30 kg/m). Large for gestational age (LGA) was defined as birthweight above the 90th percentile, small for gestational age (SGA) was birthweight below the 10th percentile, macrosomia was birthweight >4000 g, and preterm delivery was delivery prior to 37 weeks' gestation. Modified GWG targets were derived by: (1) subtracting 2 kg from the upper IOM target only; (2) subtracting 2 kg from both upper and lower targets; (3) using the interquartile range of maternal GWG of women with infants who were appropriate for gestational age per BMI category; and (4) restricting GWG to 0-4 kg in women with BMI ≥35 kg/m.
Among 3095 GDM pregnancies, only 31.7% had GWG within IOM guidelines. Adjusted ORs for women who exceeded GWG were Caesarean section (1.5; 95% CI 1.2, 1.9), LGA (1.8; 95% CI 1.4, 2.4) and macrosomia (2.3; 95% CI 1.6, 3.3); there was a lower risk of SGA (adjusted OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.3, 0.7).
CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: EGWG according to IOM targets was associated with Caesarean section, LGA and macrosomia. Modification of IOM criteria, including more restrictive targets, did not improve perinatal outcomes.
目的/假设:我们的目的是研究根据美国医学研究所(IOM)的标准判断的孕期体重过度增加(GWG)与围产期结局之间的关系,并探讨调整标准是否可以改善妊娠期糖尿病(GDM)女性的结局。
这是一项对1992年至2013年期间所有GDM妊娠进行的回顾性队列研究。计算了使用IOM标准判断的过度GWG(EGWG)与不良妊娠结局之间关联的比值比(OR)。然后针对产妇年龄、诊断时的孕周、孕前体重指数(BMI)、孕次、产次、种族、产前空腹血糖水平(BGL)、2小时BGL和糖化血红蛋白(HbA)进行OR调整。BMI分为体重过轻(<18.5kg/m²)、健康体重(18.5 - 24.9kg/m²)、超重(25 - 29.9kg/m²)和肥胖(≥30kg/m²)。大于胎龄儿(LGA)定义为出生体重高于第90百分位数,小于胎龄儿(SGA)定义为出生体重低于第10百分位数,巨大儿定义为出生体重>4000g,早产定义为妊娠37周前分娩。修改后的GWG标准推导如下:(1)仅从IOM标准的上限减去2kg;(2)从上限和下限都减去2kg;(3)使用按BMI类别划分的适于胎龄儿母亲的GWG四分位间距;(4)BMI≥35kg/m²的女性将GWG限制在0 - 4kg。
在3095例GDM妊娠中,只有31.7%的孕妇GWG在IOM指南范围内。GWG超标的女性进行剖宫产的调整后OR为1.5(95%置信区间1.2, 1.9),LGA的调整后OR为1.8(95%置信区间1.4, 2.4),巨大儿的调整后OR为2.3(95%置信区间1.6, 3.3);SGA风险较低(调整后OR 0.5;95%置信区间0.3, 0.7)。
结论/解读:根据IOM标准判断的EGWG与剖宫产、LGA和巨大儿相关。修改IOM标准,包括采用更严格的标准,并未改善围产期结局。