4.7 Article

Perinatal outcomes among twin pregnancies with gestational diabetes mellitus: A nine-year retrospective cohort study

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.946186

关键词

twin pregnancy; gestational diabetes mellitus; pregnancy outcome; neonatal outcome; perinatal outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that twin pregnancies with GDM had comparable pregnancy and neonatal outcomes to those without GDM. Twin pregnancies with GDM and adequate prenatal care have similar perinatal outcomes to those without diabetes.
ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes between gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) vs. non-GDM twin gestations. MethodsA retrospective cohort study of 2,151 twin pregnancies was performed in a tertiary hospital in Foshan, China, 2012-2020. Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes were compared between women with vs. without GDM using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) and multivariable logistic models. For neonatal outcomes, generalized estimating equation (GEE) approach was used to address the intertwin correlation. ResultsOf the 2,151 participants, 472 women (21.9%) were diagnosed with GDM. Women with GDM were older and more likely to be overweight or obese, and more likely have chronic hypertension, assisted pregnancies and dichorionic twins. In the PSM cohort of 942 pregnancies, there was no statistical difference when comparing GDM twin pregnancies and non-GDM in any of the perinatal outcomes, especially in terms of preterm birth (PTB) <37 weeks (P = 0.715), large for gestational age (LGA) (P = 0.521) and neonatal respiratory distress (NRDS) (P = 0.206). In the entire cohort, no significant adjusted ORs for these outcomes were obtained from logistic regression models adjusted for confounders (aOR for PTB < 37 weeks: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.98-1.58; aOR for LGA: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.88-1.82; and aOR for NRDS, 1.05, 95% CI: 0.68-1.64). ConclusionTwin pregnancies with GDM and adequate prenatal care have comparable perinatal outcomes to those without.

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

4.7
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