4.5 Article

Comparing type 1 and type 2 diabetes in pregnancy- similar conditions or is a separate approach required?

期刊

BMC PREGNANCY AND CHILDBIRTH
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-015-0499-y

关键词

Pregnancy; Type 1 diabetes; Type 2 diabetes

资金

  1. Health Research Board of Ireland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Pregnancy in women with type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is associated with increased risk. These conditions are managed similarly during pregnancy, and compared directly in analyses, however they affect women of different age, body mass index and ethnicity. Methods: We assess if differences exist in pregnancy outcomes between T1DM and T2DM by comparing them directly and with matched controls. We also analyze the effect of glycemic control on pregnancy outcomes and analyze predictive variables for poor outcome. Results: We include 323 women with diabetes and 660 glucose-tolerant controls. T2DM women had higher BMI, age and parity with a shorter duration of diabetes and better glycemic control. Preeclampsia occurred more in women with T1DM only. Rates of elective cesarean section were similar between groups but greater than in controls, emergency cesarean section was increased in women with type 1 diabetes. Maternal morbidity in T1DM was double that of matched controls but T2DM was similar to controls. Babies of mothers with diabetes were more likely to be delivered prematurely. Neonatal hypoglycemia occurred more in T1DM than T2DM and contributed to a higher rate of admission to neonatal intensive care for both groups. Adverse neonatal outcomes including stillbirths and congenital abnormalities were seen in both groups but were more common in T1DM pregnancies. HbA1C values at which these poor outcomes occurred differed between T1 and T2DM. Conclusions: Pregnancy outcomes in T1DM and T2DM are different and occur at different levels of glycemia. This should be considered when planning and managing pregnancy and when counseling women.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据