PofoliaShared via Pofolia

BMJ· 2022Q1· Review

Gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse pregnancy outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis

Wenrui Ye, Cong Luo, Jing Huang, Chenglong Li et al.

Short summary

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) significantly increases the odds of several adverse pregnancy outcomes, including caesarean section (OR 1.16), preterm delivery (OR 1.51), and infant macrosomia (OR 1.70), according to a meta-analysis of 7.5 million pregnancies.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with increased odds of caesarean section (OR 1.16), preterm delivery (OR 1.51), and macrosomia (OR 1.70) in studies not using insulin.
  • In studies where insulin was used, GDM increased the odds of infants being large for gestational age (OR 1.61) and requiring NICU admission (OR 2.29).
  • No clear evidence linked GDM to instrumental delivery, shoulder dystocia, postpartum hemorrhage, stillbirth, neonatal death, low birth weight, or small for gestational age after adjustments.
  • Study heterogeneity was influenced by country status, BMI adjustment, and screening methods.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse outcomes of pregnancy after adjustment for at least minimal confounding factors. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Web of Science, PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from 1 January 1990 to 1 November 2021. REVIEW METHODS: Cohort studies and control arms of trials reporting complications of pregnancy in women with gestational diabetes mellitus were eligible for inclusion. Based on the use of insulin, studies were divided into three subgroups: no insulin use (patients never used insulin during the course of the disease), insulin use (different proportions of patients were treated with insulin), and insulin use not reported. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the status of the country (developed or developing), quality of the study, diagnostic criteria, and screening method. Meta-regression models were applied based on the proportion of patients who had received insulin. RESULTS: 156 studies with 7 506 061 pregnancies were included, and 50 (32.1%) showed a low or medium risk of bias. In studies with no insulin use, when adjusted for confounders, women with gestational diabetes mellitus had increased odds of caesarean section (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.32), preterm delivery (1.51, 1.26 to 1.80), low one minute Apgar score (1.43, 1.01 to 2.03), macrosomia (1.70, 1.23 to 2.36), and infant born large for gestational age (1.57, 1.25 to 1.97). In studies with insulin use, when adjusted for confounders, the odds of having an infant large for gestational age (odds ratio 1.61, 1.09 to 2.37), or with respiratory distress syndrome (1.57, 1.19 to 2.08) or neonatal jaundice (1.28, 1.02 to 1.62), or requiring admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (2.29, 1.59 to 3.31), were higher in women with gestational diabetes mellitus than in those without diabetes. No clear evidence was found for differences in the odds of instrumental delivery, shoulder dystocia, postpartum haemorrhage, stillbirth, neonatal death, low five minute Apgar score, low birth weight, and small for gestational age between women with and without gestational diabetes mellitus after adjusting for confounders. Country status, adjustment for body mass index, and screening methods significantly contributed to heterogeneity between studies for several adverse outcomes of pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: When adjusted for confounders, gestational diabetes mellitus was significantly associated with pregnancy complications. The findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the adverse outcomes of pregnancy related to gestational diabetes mellitus. Future primary studies should routinely consider adjusting for a more complete set of prognostic factors. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021265837.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. BMJ, 2022 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Obstetrics and Gynecology

Obstetrics and GynecologyMedicine