4.5 Article

Risk of complications of pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes: nationwide prospective study in the Netherlands

期刊

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 328, 期 7445, 页码 915-918A

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38043.583160.EE

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To investigate maternal, perinatal, and neonatal outcomes of pregnancies in women with type 1 diabetes in the Netherlands. Design Nationwide prospective cohort study Setting All 118 hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants 323 women with type 1 diabetes who became pregnant between 1 April 1999 and 1 April 2000. Main outcome measures Maternal, perinatal, and neonatal Outcomes of pregnancy Results 84% (n = 271) of the pregnancies were planned. Glycaemic control early in pregnancy was good in most women (HbA(1c) less than or equal to 7.0% in 75% (n = 212) of the population), and folic acid supplementation was adequate in 70% (n = 226). 314 pregnancies that went beyond 24 weeks' gestation resulted in 324 infants. rates of pre-eclampsia (40; 12.7%), preterm delivery (101: 32.2%), caesarean section (139; 44.3%), maternal mortality (2, 0.6%), congenital malformations (29; 8.8%), perinatal mortality (9; 2.8%) and macrosomia (146 - 45.1%) were considerably higher than in the general population. Neonatal morbidity (one or more complications) was extremely high (260; 80.2%). The incidence of major congenital malformations was significantly lower in planned pregnancies than in unplanned pregnancies (4.2% (n = 11) v 12.2% (n = 6); relative risk 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.88). Conclusion Despite a high frequency of planned pregnancies, resulting in overall good glycaemic control (early) in pregnancy and a high rate of adequate use of folic acid, maternal and perinatal complications were Still increased in women With type 1 diabetes. Neonatal morbidity, especially hypoglycaemia, was also extreme]), high. Near optimal maternal glycaemic control (HbA(1c) less than or equal to 7.0%) apparently is not good enough.

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