Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 300, Issue 1, pp 79–86 | Cite as

Induction of labor versus expectant management for gestational diabetes mellitus at term

  • Dana VitnerEmail author
  • Liran Hiersch
  • Eran Ashwal
  • Anat Shmueli
  • Yariv Yogev
  • Amir Aviram
Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • 57 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate whether induction of labor (IOL), as compared with expectant management, in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) mothers at term (between 370/7 and 406/7), decreases caesarean section (CS) rate and the rate of adverse composite neonatal outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study, of all women with GDM and a singleton gestation who delivered at term in a single, tertiary, university-affiliated medical center (2007–2014). We compared outcomes of women who underwent IOL at each week of gestation between 370/7 and 406/7 weeks with women who were managed expectantly. The primary outcome was CS rate.

Results

Overall, 2472 GDM patients included in the study, of which 880 women had IOL. CS rate was not found to be significantly different between the groups at any gestational age. IOL at 37 weeks was associated with adverse composite neonatal outcome (aOR 2.2, 95% CI 1.4–3.6) and NICU admission (aOR 2.5, 95% CI 1.4–4.4). At 38 weeks, with NICU admission (aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.4–2.9), and at 39 weeks with fracture of the clavicle. In a sub-analysis of nulliparous women, IOL at 37 weeks had higher odds of NICU admission and adverse composite neonatal outcomes, at 38 weeks with CS and at 39 weeks with fracture of the clavicle.

Conclusions

IOL in GDM mothers at term does not reduce CS rate and may be associated with increased CS rate among nulliparous women at 38 weeks. It is also associated with increased risk for adverse composite neonatal outcome or NICU admission when done prior to 390/7 weeks.

Keywords

Cesarean section Gestational diabetes Induction of labor Maternal outcome Neonatal outcome 

Notes

Author contributions

DV: manuscript writing/editing and data analysis; LH: protocol/project development; EA: data collection or management; AS: data collection or management; YY: protocol/project development, data collection or management; AA: protocol/project development, data analysis and manuscript writing/editing.

Funding

All the authors declare no funding of any kind.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare no conflict of interests. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Ethical approval

All the procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. IRB was approved on September 9th, 2014. Number of approval was RMC-0421–14.

Informed consent

Due to the retrospective nature of the study, there was no need for informed consent.

References

  1. 1.
    Ferrara A (2007) Increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus: a public health perspective. Diabetes Care 30(Suppl 2):S141–S146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moyer VA (2014) Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 160(6):414–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferrara A, Weiss NS, Hedderson MM et al (2007) Pregnancy plasma glucose levels exceeding the American Diabetes Association thresholds, but below the National Diabetes Data Group thresholds for gestational diabetes mellitus, are related to the risk of neonatal macrosomia, hypoglycaemia and hyperbilirubinaemia. Diabetologia 50(2):298–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Dyer AR et al (2008) Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 358(19):1991–2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins–Obstetrics (2009) ACOG practice bulletin no. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 114(2 Pt 1):386–397Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boulvain M, Senat MV, Perrotin F et al (2015) Induction of labour versus expectant management for large-for-date fetuses: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 385(9987):2600–2605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Melamed N, Ray JG, Geary M et al (2016) Induction of labor before 40 weeks is associated with lower rate of cesarean delivery in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 214(3):364.e1-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosenstein MG, Cheng YW, Snowden JM, Nicholson JM, Doss AE, Caughey AB (2012) The risk of stillbirth and infant death stratified by gestational age in women with gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206(4):309.e1-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clark SL, Miller DD, Belfort MA, Dildy GA, Frye DK, Meyers JA (2009) Neonatal and maternal outcomes associated with elective term delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200(2):156.e1-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tita AT, Landon MB, Spong CY et al (2009) Timing of elective repeat cesarean delivery at term and neonatal outcomes. N Engl J Med 360(2):111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spong CY, Mercer BM, D'Alton M, Kilpatrick S, Blackwell S, Saade G (2011) Timing of indicated late-preterm and early-term birth. Obstet Gynecol 118(2 Pt 1):323–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheng YW, Kaimal AJ, Snowden JM, Nicholson JM, Caughey AB (2012) Induction of labor compared to expectant management in low-risk women and associated perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207(6):502.e1-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Darney BG, Snowden JM, Cheng YW et al (2013) Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 122(4):761–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boulvain M, Stan C, Irion O (2000) Elective delivery in diabetic pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:Cd001997Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Biesty LM, Egan AM, Dunne F et al (2018) Planned birth at or near term for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with gestational diabetes and their infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:Cd012910Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alberico S, Erenbourg A, Hod M et al (2017) Immediate delivery or expectant management in gestational diabetes at term: the GINEXMAL randomised controlled trial. BJOG 124(4):669–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berger H, Gagnon R, Sermer M et al (2016) Diabetes in pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 38(7):667.e1–679.e1Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics (2017) Practice bulletin no. 180: gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 130(1):e17–e37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Clinical Guidelines (2015) National collaborating centre for women’s and children’s health (UK). Diabetes in pregnancy: management of diabetes and its complications from preconception to the postnatal period. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK), LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ministry of health. Screening, Diagnosis and Management of Gestational Diabetes in New Zealand: A clinical practice guideline. Available on-line at: https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/screening-diagnosisand-management-gestational-diabetes-new-zealand-clinical-practice-guideline. Accessed Nov 2018
  21. 21.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Practice Bulletins–Obstetrics (2001) Gynecologists Committee on Practice 2001, ACOG Practice Bulletin. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Number 30, September 2001 (replaces Technical Bulletin Number 200, December 1994). Gestational diabetes. Obstet Gynecol 98(3):525–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roeckner JT, Sanchez-Ramos L, Jijon-Knupp R, Kaunitz AM (2016) Single abnormal value on 3-h oral glucose tolerance test during pregnancy is associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215(3):287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College), Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ (2014) Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 210(3):179–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2009) ACOG practice bulletin no. 106: intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles. Obstet Gynecol 114(1):192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sokol RJ, Blackwell SC, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology (2003) ACOG practice bulletin: shoulder dystocia: number 40, November 2002 (replaces practice pattern number 7, October 1997). Int J Gynaecol Obstet 80(1):87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hankins GD, Speer M (2003) Defining the pathogenesis and pathophysiology of neonatal encephalopathy and cerebral palsy. Obstet Gynecol. 102(3):628–636Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kjos SL, Henry OA, Montoro M, Buchanan TA, Mestman JH (1993) Insulin-requiring diabetes in pregnancy: a randomized trial of active induction of labor and expectant management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 169(3):611–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lurie S, Insler V, Hagay ZJ (1996) Induction of labor at 38–39 weeks of gestation reduces the incidence of shoulder dystocia in gestational diabetic patients class A2. Am J Perinatol. 13(5):293–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stock SJ, Ferguson E, Duffy A, Ford I, Chalmers J, Norman JE (2012) Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study. BMJ 344:e2838CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, affiliated to the Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of MedicineTechnion-Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Lis Maternity and Women’s Hospital, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel-Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  3. 3.Helen Schneider Hospital for Women, Rabin Medical Center, Petach-Tikva, affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel-Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations