One-step versus two-step diagnostic testing for gestational diabetes: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) using the one-step as compared with the two-step approach. STUDY DESIGN: This was a parallel group nonblinded randomized trial conducted at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (TJUH) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from June 2016 to December 2016. The primary outcome was GDM incidence in the one-step compared to the two-approach. Pregnant women without a history of pregestational diabetes were offered screening for GDM at gestational age 24-28 weeks. Obese women, defined as having a BMI ≥30 kg/m2, as well as those with a history of a pregnancy complicated by GDM, a history of a macrosomic baby (>4000 g), or with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), were offered early screening at their initial prenatal visit, and screening was repeated at 24-28 weeks if initially normal. Women were excluded if they had pre-existing diabetes or had a history of bariatric surgery. Women who were eligible were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the one-step or two-step approaches. A sample size of 142 women was planned per group. Women randomized to the one-step approach, after an overnight fast, were given a 2-h glucose tolerance test, which consisted of a 75-g glucose load. Blood glucose levels were measured fasting, at 1 h and 2 h after the glucose load. Diagnostic cutoffs for GDM diagnosis were one value of either fasting ≥92 mg/dL, 1 h ≥180 mg/dL, or 2 h ≥153 mg/dL, respectively. Women randomized to the two-step approach were given a nonfasting 50-g glucose load, and the blood glucose level was measured an hour after the glucose load. If that value was ≥135 mg/dL, the patient had a 3-h glucose tolerance test consisting of a 100-g glucose load. Diagnostic cutoffs for GDM diagnosis for this 3-h test were ≥2 abnormal values of fasting ≥95 mg/dL, 1 h ≥180 mg/dL, 2 h ≥155 mg/dL and 3 h ≥140 mg/dL, respectively. All analyses were done using an intention-to-treat approach, evaluating women according to the treatment group to which they were randomly allocated. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-four women agreed to take part in the study and underwent randomization from June 2015 to December 2015. Of them, 249 completed the screening and were followed up for the primary endpoint. Out of the 249 women who completed the screening, 123 were assigned to the one-step group and 126 to the two-step group. GDM occurred in 10 women (8.1%) in the one-step group, and 7 women (5.6%) in the two-step group (p = .42). Preeclampsia, preterm birth (PTB), induction of labor, mode of delivery and incidence of gestational age (OASIS) were not significantly different. Perinatal outcomes were similar as well. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for GDM with one-step, compared with the two-step approach, resulted in a similar incidence of GDM

Stroke recurrence in pregnancy: Experience at a regional referral center

BACKGROUND: Although stroke is more common with advancing age, especially in the elderly, women of reproductive age may still suffer from stroke, and from its deleterious consequences. Women of reproductive age who suffer a stroke may do so either due to a specific predisposition, or due to pregnancy-related hypertensive emergencies. OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of stroke recurrence in pregnancy and the postpartum period in women who have suffered a stroke before pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital from January 2005 to December 2015. This is a tertiary referral center for high-risk obstetrics and one of the largest stroke referral centers for neurosurgery. All consecutive pregnant women that had a viable pregnancy (≥24 weeks of gestation) and a history of stroke prior to pregnancy were identified. The primary outcome of this study was stroke recurrence in pregnancy or the postpartum period defined as 6 weeks after delivery. RESULTS: Forty-eight pregnancies with a history of stroke before pregnancy were identified in 24 women. Thirty-one pregnancies (64.6%) had a history of an ischemic stroke, 11 (22.9%) had a history of transient ischemic attack, and 6 (12.5%) had a history of a hemorrhagic stroke. There was no stroke recurrence during pregnancy or the postpartum period for the three groups of stroke. In the ischemic stroke group, 8 (25.8%) had recurrence in the non-pregnant state compared to none in the TIA and the hemorrhagic stroke group. CONCLUSION: There was no stroke recurrence during pregnancy or the postpartum period for the three groups of stroke

One step versus two step approach for gestational diabetes screening: systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized trials

INTRODUCTION: To compare both the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) as well as maternal and neonatal outcomes by either the one-step or the two-step approaches. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from their inception until June 2017. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the one-step with the two-step approaches for the screening and diagnosis of GDM. The primary outcome was the incidence of GDM. RESULTS: Three RCTs (n = 2333 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. 910 were randomized to the one step approach (75 g, 2 hrs), and 1423 to the two step approach. No significant difference in the incidence of GDM was found comparing the one step versus the two step approaches (8.4 versus 4.3%; relative risk (RR) 1.64, 95%CI 0.77-3.48). Women screened with the one step approach had a significantly lower risk of preterm birth (PTB) (3.7 versus 7.6%; RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.27-0.88), cesarean delivery (16.3 versus 22.0%; RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.56-0.99), macrosomia (2.9 versus 6.9%; RR 0.43, 95%CI 0.22-0.82), neonatal hypoglycemia (1.7 versus 4.5%; RR 0.38, 95%CI 0.16-0.90), and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (4.4 versus 9.0%; RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.29-0.84), compared to those randomized to screening with the two step approach. CONCLUSIONS: The one and the two step approaches were not associated with a significant difference in the incidence of GDM. However, the one step approach was associated with better maternal and perinatal outcomes

Severe COVID-19 in Third Trimester Pregnancy: Multidisciplinary Approach

The rapidly expanding cases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have exposed vulnerable populations, including pregnant women to an unprecedented public health crisis. Recent data show that pregnancy in COVID-19 patients is associated with increased hospitalization, admission of the intensive care unit, and intubation. However, very few resources exist to guide the multidisciplinary team in managing critically ill pregnant women with COVID-19. We report our experience with managing a morbidly obese pregnant woman at 36 weeks’ gestation with history of asthma and malignancy who presented with persistent respiratory symptoms at an outside hospital after being tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Early in the course of the hospitalization, patient received remdesivir, convalescent plasma, bronchodilator, systemic steroids, and IV heparin for COVID-19 and concomitant asthma exacerbation and pulmonary embolism. Due to increasing oxygen requirements, she was eventually intubated and transferred to our institution for higher level of care. Respiratory acidosis, severe hypoxemia, and vent asynchrony were managed with vent setting adjustment and paralytics. After 12 hours from spontaneous rupture of her membranes and with stabilization of maternal status, patient underwent a term cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal heart tracing. The neonate was discharged on the 2nd day of life, while the patient was extubated on the 6th postpartum day and was discharged to acute inpatient rehabilitation facility on the 19th hospital day. This report highlights the disease progression of COVID-19 in a pregnant woman, the clinical challenges in the critical care aspect of patient management, and the proposed multidisciplinary strategies utilizing an algorithmic approach to optimize maternal and neonatal outcomes

Suture Compared With Staple Skin Closure After Cesarean Delivery A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of wound complications between suture and staple skin closure after cesarean delivery. METHODS: This prospective, randomized clinical trial conducted at three hospitals in the United States between 2010 and 2012 included women undergoing cesarean delivery at 23 weeks of gestation or greater through a low-transverse skin incision. Women were randomized to closure of the skin incision with suture or staples after stratifying by body mass index and primary compared with repeat cesarean delivery. The primary outcome was incidence of wound complications, predefined as a composite of infection, hematoma, seroma, separation of 1 cm or longer, or readmission for wound complications. Analysis was according to the intention-to-treat principle; results were stratified by randomization group and adjusted for hospital by including it as a covariate. RESULTS: A total of 746 women were randomized, 370 to suture and 376 to staple closure. The median gestational age was 39 weeks. Fifty-eight women (7.8%) had wound complications-4.9% in the suture group and 10.6% in the staple group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.78); this was largely the result of the decreased incidence of wound separation in the respective groups (1.6% compared with 7.4%; adjusted OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07-0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Suture closure of the skin incision at cesarean delivery is associated with a 57% decrease in wound complications compared with staple closure