Cargando…

Mild Gestational Diabetes and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: Mild gestational diabetes (GDM) refers to the gestational hyperglycemia, which does not fulfill the diagnostic criteria for GDM. The results of studies on adverse pregnancy outcomes among women with mild GDM are controversial. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bidhendi Yarandi, Razieh, Vaismoradi, Mojtaba, Panahi, Mohammad Hossein, Gåre Kymre, Ingjerd, Behboudi-Gandevani, Samira
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8286997/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34291067
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.699412
_version_ 1783723826789482496
author Bidhendi Yarandi, Razieh
Vaismoradi, Mojtaba
Panahi, Mohammad Hossein
Gåre Kymre, Ingjerd
Behboudi-Gandevani, Samira
author_facet Bidhendi Yarandi, Razieh
Vaismoradi, Mojtaba
Panahi, Mohammad Hossein
Gåre Kymre, Ingjerd
Behboudi-Gandevani, Samira
author_sort Bidhendi Yarandi, Razieh
collection PubMed
description Background and Objectives: Mild gestational diabetes (GDM) refers to the gestational hyperglycemia, which does not fulfill the diagnostic criteria for GDM. The results of studies on adverse pregnancy outcomes among women with mild GDM are controversial. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the impact of mild GDM on the risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Methods: A thorough literature search was performed to retrieve articles that investigated adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in women with mild GDM in comparison with non-GDM counterparts. All populations were classified to three groups based on their diagnostic criteria for mild GDM. Heterogeneous and non-heterogeneous results were analyzed using the fixed/random effects models. Publication bias was assessed using the Harbord test. DerSimonian and Laird, and inverse variance methods were used to calculate the pooled relative risk of events. Subgroup analysis was performed based on mild GDM diagnostic criteria. Quality and risk of bias assessment were performed using standard questionnaires. Results: Seventeen studies involving 11,623 pregnant women with mild GDM and 53,057 non-GDM counterparts contributed to the meta-analysis. For adverse maternal outcomes, the results of meta-analysis showed that the women with mild GDM had a significantly higher risk of cesarean section (pooled RR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.2–1.5), pregnancy-induced hypertension (pooled RR: 1.4, 95% CI 1.1–1.7), preeclampsia (pooled RR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.5) and shoulder dystocia (pooled RR: 2.7, 95% CI 1.5–5.1) in comparison with the non-GDM population. For adverse neonatal outcomes, the pooled relative risk of macrosomia (pooled RR = 0.4, 95% CI: 1.1–1.7), large for gestational age (pooled RR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.3–2.3), hypoglycemia (pooled RR = 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1–2.3), hyperbilirubinemia (pooled RR = 1.1, 95% CI: 1–1.3), 5 min Apgar <7 (pooled RR = 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1–2.4), admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (pooled RR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1–2.1), respiratory distress syndrome (pooled RR = 3.2, 95% CI: 1.8–5.5), and preterm birth (pooled RR = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1–1.7) was significantly increased in the mild GDM women as compared with the non-GDM population. However, the adverse events of small for gestational age and neonatal death were not significantly different between the groups. Analysis of composite maternal and neonatal outcomes revealed that the risk of those adverse outcomes in the women with mild GDM in all classifications were significantly higher than the non-GDM population. Also, the meta-regression showed that the magnitude of those increased risks in both composite maternal and neonatal outcomes was similar. Conclusion: The risks of sever adverse neonatal outcomes including small for gestational age and neonatal mortality are not increased with mild GDM. However, the increased risks of most adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes are observed. The risks have similar magnitudes for all mild GDM diagnostic classifications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8286997
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82869972021-07-20 Mild Gestational Diabetes and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis Bidhendi Yarandi, Razieh Vaismoradi, Mojtaba Panahi, Mohammad Hossein Gåre Kymre, Ingjerd Behboudi-Gandevani, Samira Front Med (Lausanne) Medicine Background and Objectives: Mild gestational diabetes (GDM) refers to the gestational hyperglycemia, which does not fulfill the diagnostic criteria for GDM. The results of studies on adverse pregnancy outcomes among women with mild GDM are controversial. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the impact of mild GDM on the risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Methods: A thorough literature search was performed to retrieve articles that investigated adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in women with mild GDM in comparison with non-GDM counterparts. All populations were classified to three groups based on their diagnostic criteria for mild GDM. Heterogeneous and non-heterogeneous results were analyzed using the fixed/random effects models. Publication bias was assessed using the Harbord test. DerSimonian and Laird, and inverse variance methods were used to calculate the pooled relative risk of events. Subgroup analysis was performed based on mild GDM diagnostic criteria. Quality and risk of bias assessment were performed using standard questionnaires. Results: Seventeen studies involving 11,623 pregnant women with mild GDM and 53,057 non-GDM counterparts contributed to the meta-analysis. For adverse maternal outcomes, the results of meta-analysis showed that the women with mild GDM had a significantly higher risk of cesarean section (pooled RR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.2–1.5), pregnancy-induced hypertension (pooled RR: 1.4, 95% CI 1.1–1.7), preeclampsia (pooled RR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.5) and shoulder dystocia (pooled RR: 2.7, 95% CI 1.5–5.1) in comparison with the non-GDM population. For adverse neonatal outcomes, the pooled relative risk of macrosomia (pooled RR = 0.4, 95% CI: 1.1–1.7), large for gestational age (pooled RR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.3–2.3), hypoglycemia (pooled RR = 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1–2.3), hyperbilirubinemia (pooled RR = 1.1, 95% CI: 1–1.3), 5 min Apgar <7 (pooled RR = 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1–2.4), admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (pooled RR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1–2.1), respiratory distress syndrome (pooled RR = 3.2, 95% CI: 1.8–5.5), and preterm birth (pooled RR = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1–1.7) was significantly increased in the mild GDM women as compared with the non-GDM population. However, the adverse events of small for gestational age and neonatal death were not significantly different between the groups. Analysis of composite maternal and neonatal outcomes revealed that the risk of those adverse outcomes in the women with mild GDM in all classifications were significantly higher than the non-GDM population. Also, the meta-regression showed that the magnitude of those increased risks in both composite maternal and neonatal outcomes was similar. Conclusion: The risks of sever adverse neonatal outcomes including small for gestational age and neonatal mortality are not increased with mild GDM. However, the increased risks of most adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes are observed. The risks have similar magnitudes for all mild GDM diagnostic classifications. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-07-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8286997/ /pubmed/34291067 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.699412 Text en Copyright © 2021 Bidhendi Yarandi, Vaismoradi, Panahi, Gåre Kymre and Behboudi-Gandevani. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Medicine
Bidhendi Yarandi, Razieh
Vaismoradi, Mojtaba
Panahi, Mohammad Hossein
Gåre Kymre, Ingjerd
Behboudi-Gandevani, Samira
Mild Gestational Diabetes and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Mild Gestational Diabetes and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Mild Gestational Diabetes and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Mild Gestational Diabetes and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Mild Gestational Diabetes and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Mild Gestational Diabetes and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort mild gestational diabetes and adverse pregnancy outcome: a systemic review and meta-analysis
topic Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8286997/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34291067
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.699412
work_keys_str_mv AT bidhendiyarandirazieh mildgestationaldiabetesandadversepregnancyoutcomeasystemicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT vaismoradimojtaba mildgestationaldiabetesandadversepregnancyoutcomeasystemicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT panahimohammadhossein mildgestationaldiabetesandadversepregnancyoutcomeasystemicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT garekymreingjerd mildgestationaldiabetesandadversepregnancyoutcomeasystemicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT behboudigandevanisamira mildgestationaldiabetesandadversepregnancyoutcomeasystemicreviewandmetaanalysis