Development of a Screening Tool for Predicting Adverse Outcomes of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Issue 1 (January 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Park, Jee Soo; Kim, Deok Won; Kwon, Ja-Young; Park, Yong Won; Kim, Young Han; Cho, Hee Young
• Other Names: Elejalde. Rafael section editor.
• Is Part Of: Medicine. Volume 95:Issue 1(2016)
• Publication Date: 2016-01
• Subjects: Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Médecine -- Périodiques; Geneeskunde; Medicine; Periodicals; Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002204
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0025-7974

Abstract

Abstract : Abstract: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common disease in pregnancy causing maternal and fetal complications. To prevent these adverse outcomes, optimal screening and diagnostic criteria must be adequate, timely, and efficient. This study suggests a novel approach that is practical, efficient, and patient- and clinician-friendly in predicting adverse outcomes of GDM. The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study via medical record review of patients admitted between March 2001 and April 2013 at the Severance Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. Patients diagnosed by a conventional 2-step method were evaluated according to the presence of adverse outcomes (neonatal hypoglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia, and hyperinsulinemia; admission to the neonatal intensive care unit; large for gestational age; gestational insulin therapy; and gestational hypertension). Of 802 women who had an abnormal 50-g, 1-hour glucose challenge test, 306 were diagnosed with GDM and 496 did not have GDM (false-positive group). In the GDM group, 218 women (71.2%) had adverse outcomes. In contrast, 240 women (48.4%) in the false-positive group had adverse outcomes. Women with adverse outcomes had a significantly higher body mass index (BMI) at entry ( P = 0.03) and fasting blood glucose (FBG) ( P = 0.03). Our logistic regression model derived from 2 variables, BMI at entry and FBG, predicted GDM adverse outcome with an area under the curve of 0.642, accuracy of 61.3%, sensitivity of 57.2%, and specificity of 66.9% compared with the conventional 2-step method with an area under the curve of 0.610, accuracy of 59.1%, sensitivity of 47.6%, and specificity of 74.4%. Our model performed better in predicting GDM adverse outcomes than the conventional 2-step method using only BMI at entry and FBG. Moreover, our model represents a practical, inexpensive, efficient, reproducible, easy, and patient- and clinician-friendly approach.