Carpenter-Coustan criteria compared with the national diabetes data group thresholds for gestational diabetes mellitus
- PMID: 19622994
- DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181ae8d85
Carpenter-Coustan criteria compared with the national diabetes data group thresholds for gestational diabetes mellitus
Abstract
Objective: To examine perinatal outcomes in women who would meet the diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) according to the Carpenter and Coustan but not by the National Diabetes Data Group (NDDG) thresholds.
Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of women screened for GDM between January 1988 and December 2001. During the study period, only women who were diagnosed with GDM by the NDDG criteria received counseling and treatment. Women diagnosed with GDM according to the Carpenter and Coustan thresholds but not by the NDDG criteria were compared with women without GDM by either criteria. Perinatal outcomes were examined using chi test and multivariable logistic regression analyses.
Results: Among the 14,693 women screened for GDM, 753 (5.1%) would have GDM diagnosed by the Carpenter and Coustan criteria and 480 (3.3%) by the NDDG criteria only, giving 273 (1.9%) women as the study group. Compared with women without GDM, women with GDM by the Carpenter and Coustan but not by the NDDG criteria had higher odds of cesarean delivery (OR 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-2.07), operative vaginal delivery (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.20-2.46), birth weight greater than 4,500 g (OR 4.47, 95% CI 2.26-8.86), and shoulder dystocia (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.03-4.88).
Conclusion: Women diagnosed with GDM by the Carpenter and Coustan criteria but not by the NDDG criteria had higher risk of operative deliveries, macrosomia, and shoulder dystocia. We recommend using the Carpenter and Coustan diagnostic thresholds for GDM, because these diagnostic criteria are more sensitive than the NDDG criteria.
Level of evidence: II.
Comment in
-
Carpenter-Coustan criteria compared with the national diabetes data group thresholds for gestational diabetes mellitus.Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Dec;114(6):1376. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c42662. Obstet Gynecol. 2009. PMID: 19935054 No abstract available.
References
-
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Number 30, September 2001 (replaces Technical Bulletin Number 200, December 1994). Gestational diabetes. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:525–38.
-
- Naylor CD, Sermer M, Chen E, Sykora K. Cesarean delivery in relation to birth weight and gestational glucose tolerance: pathophysiology or practice style? Toronto Trihospital Gestational Diabetes Investigators. JAMA 1996;275:1165–70.
-
- Casey BM, Lucas MJ, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. Pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes compared with the general obstetric population. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:869–73.
-
- Acker DB, Sachs BP, Friedman EA. Risk factors for shoulder dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:762–8.
-
- Adams KM, Li H, Nelson RL, Ogburn PL Jr, Danilenko-Dixon DR. Sequelae of unrecognized gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:1321–32.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
