Elective delivery in diabetic pregnant women

Comparison of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes between induction and expectant management among women with gestational diabetes mellitus at term pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Induction at 38-40 weeks of gestation has been broadly suggested for women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), yet its benefits and risks remain unclear. This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze existing evidence on the effect of induction at term gestation among women with GDM.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Libraries, and Web of Science from inception to June 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing induction with expectant management among GDM term pregnancies. Primary outcomes included caesarean section (CS) and macrosomia. All screening and extraction were conducted independently and in duplicates. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were conducted to generate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.

RESULTS

Of the 4,791 citations, 11 studies were included (3 RCTs and 8 observational studies). Compared to expectant management, GDM women with induction had a significantly lower odds for macrosomia (RCTs 0.49 [0.30-0.81]); observational studies 0.64 [0.54-0.77]), but not for CS (RCTs 0.95 [0.64-1.43]); observational studies 1.03 [0.79-1.34]). Induction was associated with a lower odds of severe perineal lacerations in observational studies (0.59 [0.39-0.88]). No significant difference was observed for other maternal or neonatal morbidities, or perinatal mortality between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For GDM women, induction may reduce the risk of macrosomia and severe perineal lacerations compared to expectant management. Further rigorous studies with large sample sizes are warranted to better inform clinical implications.

A Systematic Review to Compare Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Women with Pregestational Diabetes and Gestational Diabetes

Pregestational type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 (T2DM) diabetes mellitus and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are associated with increased rates of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Adverse outcomes are more common in women with pregestational diabetes compared to GDM; although, conflicting results have been reported. This systematic review aims to summarise and synthesise studies that have compared adverse pregnancy outcomes in pregnancies complicated by pregestational diabetes and GDM. Three databases, Pubmed, EBSCOhost and Scopus were searched to identify studies that compared adverse outcomes in pregnancies complicated by pregestational T1DM and T2DM, and GDM. A total of 20 studies met the inclusion criteria and are included in this systematic review. Thirteen pregnancy outcomes including caesarean section, preterm birth, congenital anomalies, pre-eclampsia, neonatal hypoglycaemia, macrosomia, neonatal intensive care unit admission, stillbirth, Apgar score, large for gestational age, induction of labour, respiratory distress syndrome and miscarriages were compared. Findings from this review confirm that pregestational diabetes is associated with more frequent pregnancy complications than GDM. Taken together, this review highlights the risks posed by all types of maternal diabetes and the need to improve care and educate women on the importance of maintaining optimal glycaemic control to mitigate these risks.

Induction of labor and nulliparity: A nationwide clinical practice pilot evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Induction of labor has become an increasingly common obstetric procedure, but in nulliparous women or women with a previous cesarean section, it can pose a clinical challenge. Despite an overall expansion of medical indications for labor induction, there is little international consensus regarding the criteria for induction, or for the recommended methods among nulliparous women. In this light, we assessed variations in the practice of induction of labor among 21 birth units in a nationwide cohort of women with no prior vaginal birth.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We carried out a prospective observational pilot study of women with induced labor and no prior vaginal birth, across 21 Norwegian birth units. We registered induction indications, methods and outcomes from 1 September to 31 December 2018 using a web-based case record form. Women were grouped into "Nulliparous term cephalic", "Previous cesarean section" and "Other Robson" (Robson groups 6, 7, 8 or 10).

RESULTS

More than 98% of eligible women (n=1818) were included and a wide variety of methods was used for induction of labor. In nulliparous term cephalic pregnancies, cesarean section rates ranged from 11.1% to 40.6% between birth units, whereas in the previous cesarean section group, rates ranged from 22.7% to 67.5%. The indications "large fetus" and "other fetal" indications were associated with the highest cesarean rates. Failed inductions and failure to progress in labor contributed most to the cesarean rates. Uterine rupture occurred in two women (0.11%), both in the previous cesarean section group. In neonates, 1.6% had Apgar <7 at 5 minutes, and 0.4% had an umbilical artery pH <7.00.

CONCLUSIONS

Cesarean rates and applied methods for induction of labor varied widely in this nationwide cohort of women without a prior vaginal birth. Neonatal outcomes were similar to those of normal birth populations. Results could indicate the need to move towards more standardized induction protocols associated with optimal outcomes for mother and baby.

Short- and long-term outcomes of gestational diabetes and its treatment on fetal development

Globally the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is rising mainly due to the increase in maternal obesity. A number of different methods to screen for and diagnose GDM have been described although consensus on the preferred methods does not yet exist. GDM has significant short- and long-term health risks for the mother, developing fetus and the children born to mothers with GDM. Short-term risks for the fetus include macrosomia (excessive birthweight), shoulder dystocia, birth trauma, and hypoglycaemia in the immediate postpartum period. Long-term risks for offspring born to mothers with GDM include increased rates of childhood and adulthood obesity and an increased cardiometabolic risk. A number of pharmacological treatments for GDM have been identified, these include insulin and oral glucose-lowering drugs metformin and glibenclamide. Whilst these oral glucose-lowering drugs show similar short-term childhood outcomes to insulin there is increasing evidence that these drugs may have adverse long-term outcomes on children and adults exposed to the drugs in utero. Future research on treatments for GDM should include long-term follow- up of children exposed to glucose lowering medication in utero to determine the long-term cardiometabolic risk in the offspring born to mothers with GDM.

A systematic scoping review of clinical indications for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

The proportion of women undergoing induction of labour (IOL) has risen in recent decades, with significant variation within countries and between hospitals. The aim of this study was to review research supporting indications for IOL and determine which indications are supported by evidence and where knowledge gaps exist.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review of quantitative studies of common indications for IOL. For each indication, we included systematic reviews/meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case control studies that compared maternal and neonatal outcomes for different modes or timing of birth. Studies were identified via the databases PubMed, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from between April 2008 and November 2019, and also from reference lists of included studies. We identified 2554 abstracts and reviewed 300 full text articles. The quality of included studies was assessed using the RoB 2.0, the ROBINS-I and the ROBIN tool.

RESULTS

68 studies were included which related to post-term pregnancy (15), hypertension/pre-eclampsia (15), diabetes (9), prelabour rupture of membranes (5), twin pregnancy (5), suspected fetal compromise (4), maternal elevated body mass index (BMI) (4), intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (3), suspected macrosomia (3), fetal gastroschisis (2), maternal age (2), and maternal cardiac disease (1). Available evidence supports IOL for women with post-term pregnancy, although the evidence is weak regarding the timing (41 versus 42 weeks), and for women with hypertension/preeclampsia in terms of improved maternal outcomes. For women with preterm premature rupture of membranes (24-37 weeks), high-quality evidence supports expectant management rather than IOL/early birth. Evidence is weakly supportive for IOL in women with term rupture of membranes. For all other indications, there were conflicting findings and/or insufficient power to provide definitive evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

While for some indications, IOL is clearly recommended, a number of common indications for IOL do not have strong supporting evidence. Overall, few RCTs have evaluated the various indications for IOL. For conditions where clinical equipoise regarding timing of birth may still exist, such as suspected macrosomia and elevated BMI, researchers and funding agencies should prioritise studies of sufficient power that can provide quality evidence to guide care in these situations.

Planned birth at or near term for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes and their infants

BACKGROUND

Pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes (Type 1 or Type 2) have increased rates of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Current clinical guidelines support elective birth, at or near term, because of increased perinatal mortality during the third trimester of pregnancy.This review replaces a review previously published in 2001 that included "diabetic pregnant women", which has now been split into two reviews. This current review focuses on pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes (Type 1 or Type 2) and a sister review focuses on women with gestational diabetes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of planned birth (either by induction of labour or caesarean birth) at or near term gestation (37 to 40 weeks' gestation) compared with an expectant approach, for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes and their infants. The primary outcomes relate to maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (15 August 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised trials (including those using a cluster-randomised design) and non-randomised trials (e.g. quasi-randomised trials using alternate allocation) which compared planned birth, at or near term, with an expectant approach for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of the review authors independently assessed study eligibility. In future updates of this review, at least two of the review authors will extract data and assess the risk of bias in included studies. We will also assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no eligible published trials for inclusion in this review.We did identify one randomised trial which examined whether expectant management reduced the incidence of caesarean birth in uncomplicated pregnancies of women with gestational diabetes (requiring insulin) and with pre-existing diabetes. However, published data from this trial does not differentiate between pre-existing and gestational diabetes, and therefore we excluded this trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of evidence, we are unable to reach any conclusions about the health outcomes associated with planned birth, at or near term, compared with an expectant approach for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.This review demonstrates the urgent need for high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness of planned birth at or near term gestation for pregnant women with pre-existing (Type 1 or Type 2) diabetes compared with an expectant approach.

Neonatal outcomes of live-born term singletons in vertex presentation born to mothers with diabetes during pregnancy by mode of birth: a New South Wales population-based retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association between the mode of birth and adverse neonatal outcomes of macrosomic (birth weight ≥4000 g) and non-macrosomic (birth weight <4000 g) live-born term singletons in vertex presentation (TSV) born to mothers with diabetes (pre-existing and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)).

DESIGN

A population-based retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

New South Wales, Australia.

PATIENTS

All live-born TSV born to mothers with diabetes from 2002 to 2012.

INTERVENTION

Comparison of neonatal outcomes by mode of birth (prelabour caesarean section (CS) and planned vaginal birth resulted in intrapartum CS, non-instrumental or instrumental vaginal birth).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Five-minute Apgar score <7, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or special care nursery (SCN) and the need for resuscitation.

RESULTS

Among the 48 882 TSV born to mothers with diabetes, prelabour CS was associated with a significant increase in the rate of admission to NICU/SCN compared with planned vaginal birth.For TSV born to mothers with pre-existing diabetes, compared with non-instrumental vaginal birth, instrumental vaginal birth was associated with increased odds of the need for resuscitation in macrosomic (adjusted ORs (AOR) 2.6; 95% CI (1.2 to 7.5)) and non-macrosomic TSV (AOR 3.3; 95% CI (2.2 to 5.0)).For TSV born to mothers with GDM, intrapartum CS was associated with increased odds of the need for resuscitation compared with non-instrumental vaginal birth in non-macrosomic TSV (AOR 2.3; 95% CI (2.1 to 2.7)). Instrumental vaginal birth was associated with increased likelihood of requiring resuscitation compared with non-instrumental vaginal birth for both macrosomic (AOR 2.3; 95% CI (1.7 to 3.1)) and non-macrosomic (AOR 2.5; 95% CI (2.2 to 2.9)) TSV.

CONCLUSION

Pregnant women with diabetes, particularly those with suspected fetal macrosomia, need to be aware of the increased likelihood of adverse neonatal outcomes following instrumental vaginal birth and intrapartum CS when planning mode of birth.

Planned birth at or near term for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with gestational diabetes and their infants

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes is a type of diabetes that occurs during pregnancy. Women with gestational diabetes are more likely to experience adverse health outcomes such as pre-eclampsia or polyhydramnios (excess amniotic fluid). Their babies are also more likely to have health complications such as macrosomia (birthweight > 4000 g) and being large-for-gestational age (birthweight above the 90th percentile for gestational age). Current clinical guidelines support elective birth, at or near term in women with gestational diabetes to minimise perinatal complications, especially those related to macrosomia.This review replaces a review previously published in 2001 that included "diabetic pregnant women", which has now been split into two reviews. This current review focuses on pregnant women with gestational diabetes and a sister review focuses on women with pre-existing diabetes (Type 1 or Type 2).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of planned birth (either by induction of labour or caesarean birth), at or near term (37 to 40 weeks' gestation) compared with an expectant approach for improving health outcomes for women with gestational diabetes and their infants. The primary outcomes relate to maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (15 August 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials comparing planned birth, at or near term (37 to 40 weeks' gestation), with an expectant approach, for women with gestational diabetes. Cluster-randomised and non-randomised trials (e.g. quasi-randomised trials using alternate allocation) were also eligible for inclusion but none were identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of the review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included study. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

The findings of this review are based on a single trial involving 425 women with gestational diabetes. The trial compared induction of labour with expectant management (waiting for the spontaneous onset of labour in the absence of any maternal or fetal issues that may necessitate birth) in pregnant women with gestational diabetes at term. We assessed the overall risk of bias as being low for most domains, apart from performance, detection and attrition bias (for outcome perineum intact), which we assessed as being at high risk. It was an open-label trial, and women and healthcare professionals were not blinded.There were no clear differences between women randomised to induction of labour and women randomised to expectant management for maternal mortality or serious maternal morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 8.76, one trial, 425 women); caesarean section (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.77, one trial, 425 women); or instrumental vaginal birth (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.46, one trial, 425 women). For the primary outcome of maternal mortality or serious maternal morbidity, there were no deaths in either group and serious maternal morbidity related to admissions to intensive care unit. The quality of the evidence contributing to these outcomes was assessed as very low, mainly due to the study having high risk of bias for some domains and because of the imprecision of effect estimates.In relation to primary neonatal outcomes, there were no perinatal deaths in either group. The quality of evidence for this outcome was judged as very low, mainly due to high risk of bias and imprecision of effect estimates. There were no clear differences in infant outcomes between women randomised to induction of labour and women randomised to expectant management: shoulder dystocia (RR 2.96, 95% CI 0.31 to 28.21, one trial, 425 infants, very low-quality evidence); large-for-gestational age (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.02, one trial, 425 infants, low-quality evidence).There were no clear differences between women randomised to induction of labour and women randomised to expectant management for postpartum haemorrhage (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.54, one trial, 425 women); admission to intensive care unit (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.76, one trial, 425 women); and intact perineum (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.43, one trial, 425 women). No infant experienced a birth trauma, therefore, we could not draw conclusions about the effect of the intervention on the outcomes of brachial plexus injury and bone fracture at birth. Infants of women in the induction-of-labour group had higher incidences of neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia (jaundice) when compared to infants of women in the expectant-management group (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 5.46, one trial, 425 women).We found no data on the following prespecified outcomes of this review: postnatal depression, maternal satisfaction, length of postnatal stay (mother), acidaemia, intracranial haemorrhage, hypoxia ischaemic encephalopathy, small-for-gestational age, length of postnatal stay (baby) and cost.The authors of this trial acknowledge that it is underpowered for their primary outcome of caesarean section. The authors of the trial and of this review note that the CIs demonstrate a wide range, therefore making it inappropriate to draw definite conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence to inform implications for practice. The available data are not of high quality and lack power to detect possible important differences in either benefit or harm. There is an urgent need for high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness of planned birth at or near term gestation for women with gestational diabetes compared with an expectant approach.

Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus based on different risk profiles and settings for improving maternal and infant health

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a form of diabetes that occurs in pregnancy. Although GDM usually resolves following birth, it is associated with significant morbidities for mothers and their infants in the short and long term. There is strong evidence to support treatment for GDM. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not screening all pregnant women for GDM will improve maternal and infant health and if so, the most appropriate setting for screening. This review updates a Cochrane Review, first published in 2010, and subsequently updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus based on different risk profiles and settings on maternal and infant outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 January 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (14 June 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of different protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening for GDM based on different risk profiles and settings, compared with the absence of screening, or compared with other protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening. We planned to include trials published as abstracts only and cluster-randomised trials, but we did not identify any. Cross-over trials are not eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. We resolved disagreements through discussion or through consulting a third reviewer.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two trials that randomised 4523 women and their infants. Both trials were conducted in Ireland. One trial (which quasi-randomised 3742 women, and analysed 3152 women) compared universal screening versus risk factor-based screening, and one trial (which randomised 781 women, and analysed 690 women) compared primary care screening versus secondary care screening. We were not able to perform meta-analyses due to the different interventions and comparisons assessed.Overall, there was moderate to high risk of bias due to one trial being quasi-randomised, inadequate blinding, and incomplete outcome data in both trials. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the quality of the evidence for selected outcomes for the mother and her child. Evidence was downgraded for study design limitations and imprecision of effect estimates. Universal screening versus risk-factor screening (one trial) MotherMore women were diagnosed with GDM in the universal screening group than in the risk-factor screening group (risk ratio (RR) 1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 3.04; participants = 3152; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported under this comparison for other maternal outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, caesarean birth, perineal trauma, gestational weight gain, postnatal depression, and type 2 diabetes. ChildNeonatal outcomes: large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality, mortality or morbidity composite, hypoglycaemia; and childhood/adulthood outcomes: adiposity, type 2 diabetes, and neurosensory disability, were not reported under this comparison. Primary care screening versus secondary care screening (one trial) MotherThere was no clear difference between the primary care and secondary care screening groups for GDM (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.66; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), hypertension (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.59; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), pre-eclampsia (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 690;low-quality evidence), or caesarean section birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.27; participants = 690; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported for perineal trauma, gestational weight gain, postnatal depression, or type 2 diabetes. ChildThere was no clear difference between the primary care and secondary care screening groups for large-for-gestational age (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.96; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), neonatal complications: composite outcome, including: hypoglycaemia, respiratory distress, need for phototherapy, birth trauma, shoulder dystocia, five minute Apgar less than seven at one or five minutes, prematurity (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.71; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), or neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.38; participants = 690; very low-quality evidence). There was one perinatal death in the primary care screening group and two in the secondary care screening group (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.10 to 12.12; participants = 690; very low-quality evidence). There were no data for neurosensory disability, or childhood/adulthood adiposity or type 2 diabetes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient randomised controlled trial data evaluating the effects of screening for GDM based on different risk profiles and settings on maternal and infant outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests universal screening compared with risk factor-based screening leads to more women being diagnosed with GDM. Low to very low-quality evidence suggests no clear differences between primary care and secondary care screening, for outcomes: GDM, hypertension, pre-eclampsia, caesarean birth, large-for-gestational age, neonatal complications composite, and hypoglycaemia.Further, high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to assess the value of screening for GDM, which may compare different protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening (based on different risk profiles and settings), with the absence of screening, or with other protocols, guidelines or programmes. There is a need for future trials to be sufficiently powered to detect important differences in short- and long-term maternal and infant outcomes, such as those important outcomes pre-specified in this review. As only a proportion of women will be diagnosed with GDM in these trials, large sample sizes may be required.

Different insulin types and regimens for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes

BACKGROUND

Insulin requirements may change during pregnancy, and the optimal treatment for pre-existing diabetes is unclear. There are several insulin regimens (e.g. via syringe, pen) and types of insulin (e.g. fast-acting insulin, human insulin).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different insulin types and different insulin regimens in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 October 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (17 October 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 17 October 2016), and the reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different insulin types and regimens in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.We had planned to include cluster-RCTs, but none were identified. We excluded quasi-randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials. We included studies published in abstract form and contacted the authors for further details when applicable. Conference abstracts were superseded by full publications.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, conducted data extraction, assessed risk of bias, and checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

The findings in this review were based on very low-quality evidence, from single, small sample sized trial estimates, with wide confidence intervals (CI), some of which crossed the line of no effect; many of the prespecified outcomes were not reported. Therefore, they should be interpreted with caution. We included five trials that included 554 women and babies (four open-label, multi-centre, two-arm trials; one single centre, four-arm RCT). All five trials were at a high or unclear risk of bias due to lack of blinding, unclear methods of randomisation, and selective reporting of outcomes. Pooling of data from the trials was not possible, as each trial looked at a different comparison.1. One trial (N = 33 women) compared Lispro insulin with regular insulin and provided very low-quality evidence for the outcomes. There were seven episodes of pre-eclampsia in the Lispro group and nine in the regular insulin group, with no clear difference between the two groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.30). There were five caesarean sections in the Lispro group and nine in the regular insulin group, with no clear difference between the two groups (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.39). There were no cases of fetal anomaly in the Lispro group and one in the regular insulin group, with no clear difference between the groups (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.08). Macrosomia, perinatal deaths, episodes of birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, and fracture, and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.2. One trial (N = 42 women) compared human insulin to animal insulin, and provided very low-quality evidence for the outcomes. There were no cases of macrosomia in the human insulin group and two in the animal insulin group, with no clear difference between the groups (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.30). Perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy and fracture and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.3. One trial (N = 93 women) compared pre-mixed insulin (70 NPH/30 REG) to self-mixed, split-dose insulin and provided very low-quality evidence to support the outcomes. Two cases of macrosomia were reported in the pre-mixed insulin group and four in the self-mixed insulin group, with no clear difference between the two groups (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54). There were seven cases of caesarean section (for cephalo-pelvic disproportion) in the pre-mixed insulin group and 12 in the self-mixed insulin group, with no clear difference between groups (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.32). Perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, or fracture and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.4. In the same trial (N = 93 women), insulin injected with a Novolin pen was compared to insulin injected with a conventional needle (syringe), which provided very low-quality evidence to support the outcomes. There was one case of macrosomia in the pen group and five in the needle group, with no clear difference between the different insulin regimens (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.76). There were five deliveries by caesarean section in the pen group compared with 14 in the needle group; women were less likely to deliver via caesarean section when insulin was injected with a pen compared to a conventional needle (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.97). Perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, or fracture, and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.5. One trial (N = 223 women) comparing insulin Aspart with human insulin reported none of the review's primary outcomes: macrosomia, perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia. nerve palsy, or fracture, or the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity.6. One trial (N = 162 women) compared insulin Detemir with NPH insulin, and supported the outcomes with very low-quality evidence. There were three cases of major fetal anomalies in the insulin Detemir group and one in the NPH insulin group, with no clear difference between the groups (RR 3.15, 95% CI 0.33 to 29.67). Macrosomia, perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, or fracture and the composite outcome of neonatal morbidity were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With limited evidence and no meta-analyses, as each trial looked at a different comparison, no firm conclusions could be made about different insulin types and regimens in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or 2 diabetes. Further research is warranted to determine who has an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. This would include larger trials, incorporating adequate randomisation and blinding, and key outcomes that include macrosomia, pregnancy loss, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, fetal anomalies, and birth trauma.

Induction of labour at term with oral misoprostol versus a Foley catheter (PROBAAT-II): a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Labour is induced in 20-30% of all pregnancies. In women with an unfavourable cervix, both oral misoprostol and Foley catheter are equally effective compared with dinoprostone in establishing vaginal birth, but each has a better safety profile. We did a trial to directly compare oral misoprostol with Foley catheter alone.

METHODS

We did an open-label randomised non-inferiority trial in 29 hospitals in the Netherlands. Women with a term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, an unfavourable cervix, intact membranes, and without a previous caesarean section who were scheduled for induction of labour were randomly allocated to cervical ripening with 50 μg oral misoprostol once every 4 h or to a 30 mL transcervical Foley catheter. The primary outcome was a composite of asphyxia (pH ≤7·05 or 5-min Apgar score <7) or post-partum haemorrhage (≥1000 mL). The non-inferiority margin was 5%. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR3466.

FINDINGS

Between July, 2012, and October, 2013, we randomly assigned 932 women to oral misoprostol and 927 women to Foley catheter. The composite primary outcome occurred in 113 (12·2%) of 924 participants in the misoprostol group versus 106 (11·5%) of 921 in the Foley catheter group (adjusted relative risk 1·06, 90% CI 0·86-1·31). Caesarean section occurred in 155 (16·8%) women versus 185 (20·1%; relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·69-1·02, p=0·067). 27 adverse events were reported in the misoprostol group versus 25 in the Foley catheter group. None were directly related to the study procedure.

INTERPRETATION

In women with an unfavourable cervix at term, induction of labour with oral misoprostol and Foley catheter has similar safety and effectiveness.

FUNDING

FondsNutsOhra.

Planned early delivery versus expectant management of the term suspected compromised baby for improving outcomes

BACKGROUND

Fetal compromise in the term pregnancy is suspected when the following clinical indicators are present: intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), decreased fetal movement (DFM), or when investigations such as cardiotocography (CTG) and ultrasound reveal results inconsistent with standard measurements. Pathological results would necessitate the need for immediate delivery, but the management for 'suspicious' results remains unclear and varies widely across clinical centres. There is clinical uncertainty as to how to best manage women presenting with a suspected term compromised baby in an otherwise healthy pregnancy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess, using the best available evidence, the effects of immediate delivery versus expectant management of the term suspected compromised baby on neonatal, maternal and long-term outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing expectant management versus planned early delivery for women with a suspected compromised fetus from 37 weeks' gestation or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed trial quality. Two review authors independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 20 reports identified by the search strategy, we included three trials (546 participants: 269 to early delivery and 277 to expectant management), which met our inclusion criteria. Two of the trials compared outcomes in 492 pregnancies with IUGR of the fetus, and one in 54 pregnancies with oligohydramnios. All three trials were of reasonable quality and at low risk of bias. The level of evidence was graded moderate, low or very low, downgrading mostly for imprecision and for some indirectness. Overall, there was no difference in the primary neonatal outcomes of perinatal mortality (no deaths in either group, one trial, 459 women, evidence graded moderate), major neonatal morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.81, one trial, 459 women, evidence graded low), or neurodevelopmental disability/impairment at two years of age (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.69,one trial, 459 women, evidence graded low). There was no difference in the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (one trial, 333 infants) or meconium aspiration (one trial, 459 infants), There was also no difference in the reported primary maternal outcomes: maternal mortality (RR 3.07, 95% CI 0.13 to 74.87, one trial, 459 women, evidence graded low), and significant maternal morbidity (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.22, one trial, 459 women, evidence graded low).The gestational age at birth was on average 10 days earlier in women randomised to early delivery (mean difference (MD) -9.50, 95% CI -10.82 to -8.18, one trial, 459 women) and women in the early delivery group were significantly less likely to have a baby beyond 40 weeks' gestation (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.67, one trial, 33 women). Significantly more infants in the planned early delivery group were admitted to intermediate care nursery (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.61, two trials, 491 infants). There was no difference in the risk of respiratory distress syndrome, (one trial, 333 infants), Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (three trials, 546 infants), resuscitation required (one trial, 459 infants), mechanical ventilation (one trial, 337 infants), admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.23, three trials, 545 infants, evidence graded very low), length of stay in NICU/SCN (one trial, 459 infants), and sepsis (two trials, 366 infants).Babies in the expectant management group were more likely to be < 2.3rd centile for birthweight (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.73, two trials, 491 infants), however there was no difference in the proportion of babies with birthweight < 10th centile (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.10). There was no difference in any of the reported maternal secondary outcomes including: caesarean section rates (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.59, three trials, 546 women, evidence graded low), placental abruption (one trial, 459 women), pre-eclampsia (one trial, 459 women), vaginal birth (three trials 546 women), assisted vaginal birth (three trials 546 women), breastfeeding rates (one trial, 218 women), and number of weeks of breastfeeding after delivery one trial, 124 women). There was an expected increase in induction in the early delivery group (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.78 to 2.37, one trial, 459 women).No data were reported for the pre-specified secondary neonatal outcomes of the number of days of mechanical ventilation, moderate-severe hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy or need for therapeutic hypothermia. Likewise, no data were reported for secondary maternal outcomes of postnatal infection, maternal satisfaction or views of care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A policy for planned early delivery versus expectant management for a suspected compromised fetus at term does not demonstrate any differences in major outcomes of perinatal mortality, significant neonatal or maternal morbidity or neurodevelopmental disability. In women randomised to planned early delivery, the gestational age at birth was on average 10 days earlier, women were less likely to have a baby beyond 40 weeks' gestation, they were more likely to be induced and infants were more likely to be admitted to intermediate care nursery. There was also a significant difference in the proportion of babies with a birthweight centile < 2.3rd, however this did not translate into a reduction in morbidity. The review is informed by only one large trial and two smaller trials assessing fetuses with IUGR or oligohydramnios and therefore cannot be generalised to all term pregnancies with suspected fetal compromise. There are other indications for suspecting compromise in a fetus at or near term such as maternal perception of DFM, and ultrasound and/or CTG abnormalities. Future randomised trials need to assess effectiveness of timing of delivery for these indications.

Gestational diabetes mellitus: challenges in diagnosis and management

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a well-characterized disease affecting a significant population of pregnant women worldwide. It has been widely linked to undue weight gain associated with factors such as diet, obesity, family history, and ethnicity. Poorly controlled GDM results in maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. Improved outcomes therefore rely on early diagnosis and tight glycaemic control. While straightforward protocols exist for screening and management of diabetes mellitus in the general population, management of GDM remains controversial with conflicting guidelines and treatment protocols. This review highlights the diagnostic and management options for GDM in light of recent advances in care.

Diabetes in pregnancy: timing and mode of delivery

Diabetes in pregnancy represents a risk condition for adverse maternal and feto-neonatal outcomes and many of these complications might occur during labor and delivery. In this context, the obstetrician managing women with pre-existing and gestational diabetes should consider (1) how these conditions might affect labor and delivery outcomes; (2) what are the current recommendations on management; and (3) which other factors should be considered to decide about the timing and mode of delivery. The analysis of the studies considered in this review leads to the conclusion that the decision to deliver should be primarily intended to reduce the risk of stillbirth, macrosomia, and shoulder dystocia. In this context, this review provides useful information for managing specific subgroups of diabetic women that may present overlapping risk factors, such as women with insulin-requiring diabetes and/or obesity and/or prenatal suspicion of macrosomic fetus. To date, the lack of definitive evidences and the complexity of the problem suggest that the "appropriate" clinical management should be customized according with the clinical condition, the type and mode of intervention, its consequences on outcomes, and considering the woman's consent and informed decisions.

Elective induction of labor in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: an intervention that modifies the risk of cesarean section

AIM

To evaluate the effect of elective induction at term for women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) on the risk for cesarean delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective case-control matched study, based on a single-center computerized database, 2005-2011. The medical records were reviewed for GDM management and glycemic control. For the study, two groups were defined: Group 1, women diagnosed with GDM with an estimated fetal weight <4,000 g, electively induced at term; Group 2, women induced due to Term-PROM, an indication for term induction in normoglycemic women with uncomplicated pregnancies, matched for age and parity (ratio 1:2). The primary outcome was cesarean delivery and secondary outcomes included other maternal and neonatal events. Descriptive analyses and multivariate analyses models were fitted.

RESULTS

GDM was diagnosed in 1,873 (2.6 %) women of 72,374 births; 227 (12.1 %) were eligible for inclusion in Group 1 and matched with 454 women in Group 2. GDM management included diet in 103 (45.4 %), insulin in 81 (35.7 %), and oral hypoglycemic agents in 43 (18.9 %).The cesarean delivery rate was significantly higher in Group 1, 17.1 vs. 11.2 % (p = 0.02). Three out of four births complicated by shoulder dystocia and BW <4,000 g, occurred in Group 1 (p = 0.076) and were associated with no glycemic control. Other obstetrical-related outcomes such as instrumental birth, severe perineal tears, early postpartum hemorrhage and peripartum transfusion were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Elective induction at term for women with GDM is associated with an increased risk for cesarean delivery as compared to other elective induction of labor.

Screening and subsequent management for gestational diabetes for improving maternal and infant health

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a form of diabetes that occurs in pregnancy. Although GDM usually resolves following birth, it is associated with significant morbidities for mother and baby both perinatally and in the long term. There is strong evidence to support treatment for GDM. However, there is little consensus on whether or not screening for GDM will improve maternal and infant health and if so, the most appropriate protocol to follow.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different methods of screening for GDM and maternal and infant outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 December 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of different methods of screening for GDM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and quality assessment. We resolved disagreements through discussion or through a third author.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four trials involving 3972 women in the review. One quasi-randomised trial compared risk factor screening with universal or routine screening by 50 g oral glucose challenge testing. Women in the universal screening group were more likely to be diagnosed with GDM (one trial, 3152 women, risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.75). This trial did not report on the other primary outcomes of the review (positive screen for GDM, mode of birth, large-for-gestational age, or macrosomia). Considering secondary outcomes, infants of mothers in the risk factor screening group were born marginally earlier than infants of mothers in the routine screening group (one trial, 3152 women, mean difference (MD) -0.15 weeks, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.03).The remaining three trials evaluated different methods of administering a 50 g glucose load. Two small trials compared glucose monomer with glucose polymer testing, with one of these trials including a candy bar group. One trial compared a glucose solution with food. No differences in diagnosis of GDM were found between each comparison. However, in one trial significantly more women in the glucose monomer group screened positive for GDM than women in the candy bar group (80 women, RR 3.49, 95% CI 1.05 to 11.57). The three trials did not report on the primary review outcomes of mode of birth, large-for-gestational age or macrosomia. Overall, women drinking the glucose monomer experienced fewer side effects from testing than women drinking the glucose polymer (two trials, 151 women, RR 2.80, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.13). However, we observed substantial heterogeneity between the trials for this result (I² = 61%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to determine if screening for gestational diabetes, or what types of screening, can improve maternal and infant health outcomes.

Elective birth at 37 weeks' gestation for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of birth for women with an otherwise uncomplicated twin pregnancy at term is uncertain, with clinical support for both elective delivery at 37 weeks, as well as expectant management (awaiting the spontaneous onset of labour).

OBJECTIVES

To assess a policy of elective delivery from 37 weeks' gestation compared with an expectant approach for women with an otherwise uncomplicated twin pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (12 December 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials with reported data that compared outcomes in mothers and babies who underwent elective delivery from 37 weeks' gestation in a twin pregnancy with outcomes in controls who were managed expectantly.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, trial quality and extracted data from the included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Two randomised controlled trials comparing elective birth at 37 weeks for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy, with expectant management were included, involving 271 women and 542 infants. One trial was at an overall low risk of bias, and one trial was at unclear risk of selection bias, performance bias and detection bias.There were no statistically significant differences identified between a policy of elective birth at 37 weeks' gestation and expectant management with regards to birth by caesarean section (two studies; 271 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.32); perinatal death or serious perinatal morbidity (two studies; 542 infants; RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.01 to 8.35); or maternal death or serious maternal morbidity (one study; 235 women; RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.06 to 1.38).There were no statistically significant differences identified for the pre-specified secondary maternal and infant review outcomes reported by these two trials between the two treatment policies (including for: haemorrhage requiring blood transfusion; instrumental vaginal birth; meconium-stained liquor; Apgar score less than seven at five minutes; admission to neonatal intensive care; birthweight less than 2500 g; neonatal encephalopathy; and respiratory distress syndrome). While not a pre-specified review outcome, elective birth at 37 weeks, compared with expectant management, was shown to significantly reduce the risk of infants being born with a birthweight less than the third centile (one study; 470 infants; RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.68).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Early birth at 37 weeks' gestation compared with ongoing expectant management for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of harms, findings which are consistent with the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations which advocate birth for women with a dichorionic twin pregnancy at 37 + 0 weeks' gestation. It is unlikely that sufficient clinical equipoise exists to allow for the randomisation of women to a later gestational age at birth.

Trends in maternal BMI, glycaemic control and perinatal outcome among type 1 diabetic pregnant women in 1989-2008

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Our objective was to examine the trends in prepregnancy BMI and glycaemic control among Finnish type 1 diabetic patients and their relation to delivery mode and perinatal outcome.

METHODS

We analysed the obstetric records of 881 type 1 diabetic women with a singleton childbirth during 1989-2008. Maternal prepregnancy weight and height were obtained from the maternity cards, where they are recorded as reported by the mother.

RESULTS

Maternal BMI increased significantly during 1989-2008 (p < 0.001). The mean HbA(1c) in the first trimester remained unchanged, but the midpregnancy and the last HbA(1c) before delivery increased (p = 0.009 and 0.005, respectively). Elective Caesarean sections (CS) decreased (p for trend <0.001), while emergency CS increased (p for trend <0.001). The mean umbilical artery (UA) pH decreased in vaginal deliveries (p for trend <0.001). The frequency of UA pH <7.15 and <7.05 increased (p for trend <0.001 and 0.008, respectively). The macrosomia rate remained at 32-40%. Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions increased (p for trend 0.03) and neonatal hypoglycaemia frequency decreased (p for trend 0.001). In multiple logistic regression analysis, maternal BMI was associated with macrosomia and NICU admission. The last HbA(1c) value before delivery was associated with delivery before 37 weeks' gestation, UA pH <7.15, 1 min Apgar score <7, macrosomia, NICU admission and neonatal hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Self-reported pregestational BMI has increased and glycaemic control during the second half of pregnancy has deteriorated. Poor glycaemic control seems to be associated with the observed increases in adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes.

"GINEXMAL RCT: Induction of labour versus expectant management in gestational diabetes pregnancies"

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes (GDM) is one of the most common complications of pregnancies affecting around 7% of women. This clinical condition is associated with an increased risk of developing fetal macrosomia and is related to a higher incidence of caesarean section in comparison to the general population. Strong evidence indicating the best management between induction of labour at term and expectant monitoring are missing.

METHODS/DESIGN

Pregnant women with singleton pregnancy in vertex presentation previously diagnosed with gestational diabetes will be asked to participate in a multicenter open-label randomized controlled trial between 38+0 and 39+0 gestational weeks. Women will be recruited in the third trimester in the outpatient clinic or in the Day Assessment Unit according to local protocols. Women who opt to take part will be randomized according to induction of labour or expectant management for spontaneous delivery. Patients allocated to the induction group will be admitted to the obstetric ward and offered induction of labour via use of prostaglandins, Foley catheter or oxytocin (depending on clinical conditions). Women assigned to the expectant arm will be sent to their domicile where they will be followed up until delivery, through maternal and fetal wellbeing monitoring twice weekly. The primary study outcome is the Caesarean section (C-section) rate, whilst secondary measurements are maternal and neonatal outcomes. A total sample of 1760 women (880 each arm) will be recruited to identify a relative difference between the two arms equal to 20% in favour of induction, with concerns to C-section rate. Data will be collected until mothers and newborns discharge from the hospital. Analysis of the outcome measures will be carried out by intention to treat.

DISCUSSION

The present trial will provide evidence as to whether or not, in women affected by gestational diabetes, induction of labour between 38+0 and 39+0 weeks is an effective management to ameliorate maternal and neonatal outcomes. The primary objective is to determine whether caesarean section rate could be reduced among women undergoing induction of labour, in comparison to patients allocated to expectant monitoring. The secondary objective consists of the assessment and comparison of maternal and neonatal outcomes in the two study arms. .

Effect of screening and management of diabetes during pregnancy on stillbirths

BACKGROUND

Diabetes during pregnancy is associated with significant risk of complications to the mother, fetus and newborn. We reviewed the potential impact of early detection and control of diabetes mellitus during pregnancy on stillbirths for possible inclusion in the Lives Saved Tool (LiST).

METHODS

A systematic literature search up to July 2010 was done to identify all published randomized controlled trials and observational studies. A standardized data abstraction sheet was employed and data were abstracted by two independent authors. Meta-analyses were performed with different sub-group analyses. The analyses were graded according to the CHERG rules using the adapted GRADE criteria and recommendations made after assessing the overall quality of the studies included in the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 70 studies were selected for data extraction including fourteen intervention studies and fifty six observational studies. No randomized controlled trials were identified evaluating early detection of diabetes mellitus in pregnancy versus standard screening (glucose challenge test between 24th to 28th week of gestation) in pregnancy. Intensive management of gestational diabetes (including specialized dietary advice, increased monitoring and tailored dietary therapy) during pregnancy (3 studies: 3791 participants) versus conventional management (dietary advice and insulin as required) was associated with a non-significant reduction in the risk of stillbirths (RR 0.20; 95% CI: 0.03-1.10) ('moderate' quality evidence). Optimal control of serum blood glucose versus sub-optimal control was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of perinatal mortality (2 studies, 5286 participants: RR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.25- 0.63), but not stillbirths (3 studies, 2469 participants: RR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.14-1.88). Preconception care of diabetes (information about need for optimization of glycemic control before pregnancy, assessment of diabetes complications, review of dietary habits, intensification of capillary blood glucose self-monitoring and optimization of insulin therapy) versus none (3 studies: 910 participants) was associated with a reduction in perinatal mortality (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 -0.60). Using the Delphi process for estimating effect size of optimal diabetes recognition and management yielded a median effect size of 10% reduction in stillbirths.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes, especially pre-gestational diabetes with its attendant vascular complications, is a significant risk factor for stillbirth and perinatal death. Our review highlights the fact that very few studies of adequate quality are available that can provide estimates of the effect of screening for aid management of diabetes in pregnancy on stillbirth risk. Using the Delphi process we recommend a conservative 10% reduction in the risk of stillbirths, as a point estimate for inclusion in the LiST.

Screening and subsequent management for gestational diabetes for improving maternal and infant health

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a form of diabetes that occurs in pregnancy. Although GDM usually resolves following birth, it is associated with significant morbidities for mother and baby both perinatally and in the long term. There is strong evidence to support treatment for GDM. However, there is little consensus on whether or not screening for GDM will improve maternal and infant health and if so, the most appropriate protocol to follow.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different methods of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus and maternal and infant outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of different methods of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and quality assessment. We resolved disagreements through discussion or through a third author.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four trials involving 3972 women were included in the review. One quasi-randomised trial compared risk factor screening with universal or routine screening by 50 g oral glucose challenge testing. Women in the universal screening group were more likely to be diagnosed with GDM (one trial, 3152 women, risk ratio (RR) 0.44 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.75). Infants of mothers in the risk factor screening group were born marginally earlier than infants of mothers in the routine screening group (one trial, 3152 women, mean difference -0.15 weeks, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.53).The remaining three trials evaluated different methods of administering a 50 g glucose load. Two small trials compared glucose monomer with glucose polymer testing, with one of these trials including a candy bar group. One trial compared a glucose solution with food. No differences in diagnosis of GDM were found between each comparison. Overall, women drinking the glucose monomer experienced fewer side effects from testing than women drinking the glucose polymer (two trials, 151 women, RR 2.80, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.13). However, we observed high heterogeneity between the trials for this result (I(2) = 61%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to determine if screening for gestational diabetes, or what types of screening, can improve maternal and infant health outcomes.

Reducing stillbirths: interventions during labour

BACKGROUND

Approximately one million stillbirths occur annually during labour; most of these stillbirths occur in low and middle-income countries and are associated with absent, inadequate, or delayed obstetric care. The low proportion of intrapartum stillbirths in high-income countries suggests that intrapartum stillbirths are largely preventable with quality intrapartum care, including prompt recognition and management of intrapartum complications. The evidence for impact of intrapartum interventions on stillbirth and perinatal mortality outcomes has not yet been systematically examined.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review of the published literature, searching PubMed and the Cochrane Library, of trials and reviews (N = 230) that reported stillbirth or perinatal mortality outcomes for eight interventions delivered during labour. Where eligible randomised controlled trials had been published after the most recent Cochrane review on any given intervention, we incorporated these new trial findings into a new meta-analysis with the Cochrane included studies.

RESULTS

We found a paucity of studies reporting statistically significant evidence of impact on perinatal mortality, especially on stillbirths. Available evidence suggests that operative delivery, especially Caesarean section, contributes to decreased stillbirth rates. Induction of labour rather than expectant management in post-term pregnancies showed strong evidence of impact, though there was not enough evidence to suggest superior safety for the fetus of any given drug or drugs for induction of labour. Planned Caesarean section for term breech presentation has been shown in a large randomised trial to reduce stillbirths, but the feasibility and consequences of implementing this intervention routinely in low-/middle-income countries add caveats to recommending its use. Magnesium sulphate for pre-eclampsia and eclampsia is effective in preventing eclamptic seizures, but studies have not demonstrated impact on perinatal mortality. There was limited evidence of impact for maternal hyperoxygenation, and concerns remain about maternal safety. Transcervical amnioinfusion for meconium staining appears promising for low/middle income-country application according to the findings of many small studies, but a large randomised trial of the intervention had no significant impact on perinatal mortality, suggesting that further studies are needed.

CONCLUSION

Although the global appeal to prioritise access to emergency obstetric care, especially vacuum extraction and Caesarean section, rests largely on observational and population-based data, these interventions are clearly life-saving in many cases of fetal compromise. Safe, comprehensive essential and emergency obstetric care is particularly needed, and can make the greatest impact on stillbirth rates, in low-resource settings. Other advanced interventions such as amnioinfusion and hyperoxygenation may reduce perinatal mortality, but concerns about safety and effectiveness require further study before they can be routinely included in programs.

Reducing stillbirths: screening and monitoring during pregnancy and labour

BACKGROUND

Screening and monitoring in pregnancy are strategies used by healthcare providers to identify high-risk pregnancies so that they can provide more targeted and appropriate treatment and follow-up care, and to monitor fetal well-being in both low- and high-risk pregnancies. The use of many of these techniques is controversial and their ability to detect fetal compromise often unknown. Theoretically, appropriate management of maternal and fetal risk factors and complications that are detected in pregnancy and labour could prevent a large proportion of the world's 3.2 million estimated annual stillbirths, as well as minimise maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

The fourth in a series of papers assessing the evidence base for prevention of stillbirths, this paper reviews available published evidence for the impact of 14 screening and monitoring interventions in pregnancy on stillbirth, including identification and management of high-risk pregnancies, advanced monitoring techniques, and monitoring of labour. Using broad and specific strategies to search PubMed and the Cochrane Library, we identified 221 relevant reviews and studies testing screening and monitoring interventions during the antenatal and intrapartum periods and reporting stillbirth or perinatal mortality as an outcome.

RESULTS

We found a dearth of rigorous evidence of direct impact of any of these screening procedures and interventions on stillbirth incidence. Observational studies testing some interventions, including fetal movement monitoring and Doppler monitoring, showed some evidence of impact on stillbirths in selected high-risk populations, but require larger rigourous trials to confirm impact. Other interventions, such as amniotic fluid assessment for oligohydramnios, appear predictive of stillbirth risk, but studies are lacking which assess the impact on perinatal mortality of subsequent intervention based on test findings. Few rigorous studies of cardiotocography have reported stillbirth outcomes, but steep declines in stillbirth rates have been observed in high-income settings such as the U.S., where cardiotocography is used in conjunction with Caesarean section for fetal distress.

CONCLUSION

There are numerous research gaps and large, adequately controlled trials are still needed for most of the interventions we considered. The impact of monitoring interventions on stillbirth relies on use of effective and timely intervention should problems be detected. Numerous studies indicated that positive tests were associated with increased perinatal mortality, but while some tests had good sensitivity in detecting distress, false-positive rates were high for most tests, and questions remain about optimal timing, frequency, and implications of testing. Few studies included assessments of impact of subsequent intervention needed before recommending particular monitoring strategies as a means to decrease stillbirth incidence. In high-income countries such as the US, observational evidence suggests that widespread use of cardiotocography with Caesarean section for fetal distress has led to significant declines in stillbirth rates. Efforts to increase availability of Caesarean section in low-/middle-income countries should be coupled with intrapartum monitoring technologies where resources and provider skills permit.

Indications for induction of labour: a best-evidence review

BACKGROUND

Rates of labour induction are increasing.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence supporting indications for induction.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We listed indications for labour induction and then reviewed the evidence. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library between 1980 and April 2008 using several terms and combinations, including induction of labour, premature rupture of membranes, post-term pregnancy, preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (PROM), multiple gestation, suspected macrosomia, diabetes, gestational diabetes mellitus, cardiac disease, fetal anomalies, systemic lupus erythematosis, oligohydramnios, alloimmunization, rhesus disease, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (IHCP), and intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). We performed a review of the literature supporting each indication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We identified 1387 abstracts and reviewed 418 full text articles. We preferentially included high-quality systematic reviews or large randomised trials. Where no such studies existed, we included the best evidence available from smaller randomised trials and observational studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 full text articles. For each indication, we assigned levels of evidence and grades of recommendation based upon the GRADE system. Recommendations for induction of labour for post-term gestation, PROM at term, and premature rupture of membranes near term with pulmonary maturity are supported by the evidence. Induction for IUGR before term reduces intrauterine fetal death, but increases caesarean deliveries and neonatal deaths. Evidence is insufficient to support induction for women with insulin-requiring diabetes, twin gestation, fetal macrosomia, oligohydramnios, cholestasis of pregnancy, maternal cardiac disease and fetal gastroschisis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Research is needed to determine risks and benefits of induction for many commonly advocated clinical indications.

Labor and delivery management for women with diabetes

Diabetes in pregnancy confers a number of risks for both the mother and her baby, and many of these risks are encountered in the labor and delivery unit. The obstetric provider caring for women with diabetes should be alert to the risk of hypertension and the potential for difficult delivery due to an overgrown fetus. Women with preexisting diabetes or poor glycemic control are at increased risk for poor obstetrical outcomes such as stillbirth or delivery of a malformed infant. Meticulous attention to avoiding maternal hyperglycemia during labor can prevent neonatal hypoglycemia.

A review of the methodological features of systematic reviews in maternal medicine

BACKGROUND

In maternal medicine, research evidence is scattered making it difficult to access information for clinical decision making. Systematic reviews of good methodological quality are essential to provide valid inferences and to produce usable evidence summaries to guide management. This review assesses the methodological features of existing systematic reviews in maternal medicine, comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews in maternal medicine.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Database of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were searched for relevant reviews published between 2001 and 2006. We selected those reviews in which a minimum of two databases were searched and the primary outcome was related to the maternal condition. The selected reviews were assessed for information on framing of question, literature search and methods of review.

RESULTS

Out of 2846 citations, 68 reviews were selected. Among these, 39 (57%) were Cochrane reviews. Most of the reviews (50/68, 74%) evaluated therapeutic interventions. Overall, 54/68 (79%) addressed a focussed question. Although 64/68 (94%) reviews had a detailed search description, only 17/68 (25%) searched without language restriction. 32/68 (47%) attempted to include unpublished data and 11/68 (16%) assessed for the risk of missing studies quantitatively. The reviews had deficiencies in the assessment of validity of studies and exploration for heterogeneity. When compared to Cochrane reviews, other reviews were significantly inferior in specifying questions (OR 20.3, 95% CI 1.1-381.3, p = 0.04), framing focussed questions (OR 30.9, 95% CI 3.7- 256.2, p = 0.001), use of unpublished data (OR 5.6, 95% CI 1.9-16.4, p = 0.002), assessment for heterogeneity (OR 38.1, 95%CI 2.1, 688.2, p = 0.01) and use of meta-analyses (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.3-10.8, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

This study identifies areas which have a strong influence on maternal morbidity and mortality but lack good quality systematic reviews. Overall quality of the existing systematic reviews was variable. Cochrane reviews were of better quality as compared to other reviews. There is a need for good quality systematic reviews to inform practice in maternal medicine.

Women with gestational diabetes mellitus in the ACHOIS trial: risk factors for shoulder dystocia

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with increased risk of fetal macrosomia and shoulder dystocia. However, not all women with GDM and fetal macrosomia have shoulder dystocia.

AIMS

To identify the risk factors for shoulder dystocia in women with gestational diabetes using data from women recruited into the routine care group of the ACHOIS trial.

METHODS

A secondary analysis was performed on data collected from women enrolled in the ACHOIS trial. Bivariate analyses were performed using the Fisher exact test. Variables found to be significantly associated with shoulder dystocia and previously identified risk factors were used as explanatory variables in multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

A positive relationship was found between the severity of maternal fasting hyperglycaemia and the risk of shoulder dystocia, with a 1 mmol increase in fasting oral glucose-tolerance test leading to a relative risk (RR) of 2.09 (95% CI 1.03-4.25). Shoulder dystocia occurred more often in births requiring operative vaginal delivery (RR 9.58, 95% CI 3.70-24.81, P < 0.001). Macrosomic and large-for-gestational-age infants were more likely to have births complicated by shoulder dystocia (RR 6.27, 95% CI 2.33-16.88, P < 0.001 and RR 4.57, 95% CI 1.74-12.01, P < 0.005, respectively). Fetal macrosomia was the only variable to maintain its significance in all multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Fetal macrosomia is the strongest independent risk factor for shoulder dystocia. Effective preventative strategies are needed.

Intrapartum interventions for preventing shoulder dystocia

BACKGROUND

The early management of shoulder dystocia involves the administration of various manoeuvres which aim to relieve the dystocia by manipulating the fetal shoulders and increasing the functional size of the maternal pelvis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of prophylactic manoeuvres in preventing shoulder dystocia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 June 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing the prophylactic implementation of manoeuvres and maternal positioning with routine or standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied exclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials were included; one comparing the McRobert's manoeuvre and suprapubic pressure with no prophylactic manoeuvres in 185 women likely to give birth to a large baby and one trial comparing the use of the McRobert's manoeuvre versus lithotomy positioning in 40 women. We decided not to pool the results of the two trials. One study reported fifteen cases of shoulder dystocia in the therapeutic (control) group compared to five in the prophylactic group (relative risk (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.14) and the other study reported one episode of shoulder dystocia in both prophylactic and lithotomy groups. In the first study, there were significantly more caesarean sections in the prophylactic group and when these were included in the results, significantly fewer instances of shoulder dystocia were seen in the prophylactic group (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.86). In this study, thirteen women in the control group required therapeutic manoeuvres after delivery of the fetal head compared to three in the treatment group (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.02). One study reported no birth injuries or low Apgar scores recorded. In the other study, one infant in the control group had a brachial plexus injury (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.02 to 10.61), and one infant had a five-minute Apgar score less than seven (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.02 to 10.61).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no clear findings to support or refute the use of prophylactic manoeuvres to prevent shoulder dystocia, although one study showed an increased rate of caesareans in the prophylactic group. Both included studies failed to address important maternal outcomes such as maternal injury, psychological outcomes and satisfaction with birth. Due to the low incidence of shoulder dystocia, trials with larger sample sizes investigating the use of such manoeuvres are required.

Active induction management of labor for diabetic pregnancies at term; mode of delivery and fetal outcome—a single center experience

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the mode of delivery in diabetic pregnancies at term following induction of labor with vaginal application of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), and to identify possible predictors of successful vaginal delivery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study group consisted of 105 women with diabetic pregnancies at term admitted for induction of labor; 84 (80%) had gestational diabetes (GDM) and 21 (20%) type 1 diabetes. Findings were compared with women who underwent elective induction of labor (n=115), and women with normal spontaneous onset of labor (n=510). Women with previous cesarean section (CS) were excluded from both study and control groups.

RESULTS

Maternal age and gravidity were significantly higher in the study group than the control groups (age: 31.4+/-5, 28+/-5.0 and 28.1+/-4.8 years, respectively; gravidity: 3.0+/-1.9, 2.5+/-1.6, and 2.1+/-1.4, respectively; P<0.001 for both) and gestational age and nulliparity rate were significantly lower (gestational age: 38.6+/-1.1, 40.2+/-1.3 and 39.3+/-2.7 weeks, respectively; nulliparity: 34.6, 45.2, 51.6%, respectively; P<0.002 for both). There were no between-group differences in the incidence of oligohydramnios, number of PGE2 applications used, birth weight, rate of non-reassuring fetal heart rate pattern leading to CS, and rate of low 5 min Apgar score (<7). The rate of CS in the study group (18.2%) was significantly higher than in the spontaneous labor group (9%) but similar to the elective induction group (14.8%). On stepwise analysis, only nulliparity (OR 4.56, 95% CI 1.11-18.67, P=0.035) was independently and significantly associated with increased risk of CS. Within the study group (R2=0.257, P=0.002), type 1 diabetes (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.04-5.51) was independently and significantly associated with increased risk of CS.

CONCLUSION

In diabetic pregnancies, induction of labor at term with vaginal PGE2 is successful in approximately 82% of patients, but yields a significantly higher CS rate compared to uncomplicated pregnancies. Nulliparity and diagnosis of type 1 diabetes are independently and significantly associated with increased risk of CS.

CONDENSATION

In diabetic pregnancies, induction of labor at term is successful in 82% of patients, but yields higher CS rates compared to uncomplicated pregnancies.

Elective delivery of women with a twin pregnancy from 37 weeks' gestation

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of birth for women with an otherwise uncomplicated twin pregnancy at term is uncertain, with clinical support for both elective delivery at 37 weeks, as well as expectant management (awaiting the spontaneous onset of labour).

OBJECTIVES

To assess a policy of elective delivery from 37 weeks' gestation compared with an expectant approach for women with an otherwise uncomplicated twin pregnancy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (searched 8 July 2002), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2002) and PubMed (January 1966 to 8 July 2002).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials with reported data which compared outcomes in mothers and babies who underwent elective delivery from 37 weeks' gestation in a twin pregnancy with outcomes in controls who were managed expectantly.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Outcomes listed were collected from the identified trial.

MAIN RESULTS

A single randomised controlled trial comparing elective induction of labour at 37 weeks for women with a twin pregnancy with expectant management was identified. A total of 36 women were recruited to the trial with 17 women allocated to the induction of labour group and 19 women to the expectant management group. For primary outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between elective induction of labour and expectant management with regards to all caesarean births (relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 1.90), caesarean birth for fetal distress (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.53), or perinatal death (RR not estimable). For secondary outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between the two interventions with regards to haemorrhage requiring blood transfusion (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.53), meconium stained liquor (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.77), Apgar score of less than seven at five minutes (RR not estimable), and infant birth weight less than 2500 grams (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.82).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The small trial identified was underpowered to detect the outcome measures of interest. Consequently, there are insufficient data available to support a practice of elective delivery from 37 weeks gestation for women with an otherwise uncomplicated twin pregnancy at term.