/=3 times per day. All diabetic and 10 nondiabetic patients had several measured BG excursions above 130 mg/dl. A positive correlation was observed between birth weight centile and glycemia index above 130 (p < 0.03); the trend persisted for nondiabetic patients alone (p < 0.05). No significant correlation was noted between birth weight centile and average 3-day CGM values, 3-day fasting BG, average 3-day self-BG monitoring values, or diabetes screening BG value.CONCLUSIONS: The glycemia index has a better correlation with birth weight centile than BG measured by conventional methods in a mixed diabetic and nondiabetic population. Fetal exposure to maternal blood glucose excursions correlates positively with fetal growth, even in nondiabetic patients with apparently normal glucose tolerance." />
Display options
Cite
Taslimi MM, Navabi K, Acosta R, et al. Concealed maternal blood glucose excursions correlate with birth weight centile. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008;2(3):456-60doi: 10.1177/193229680800200315.
Taslimi, M. M., Navabi, K., Acosta, R., Helmer, A., & El-Sayed, Y. Y. (2008). Concealed maternal blood glucose excursions correlate with birth weight centile. Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2(3), 456-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/193229680800200315
Taslimi, Masoud Mark, et al. "Concealed maternal blood glucose excursions correlate with birth weight centile." Journal of diabetes science and technology vol. 2,3 (2008): 456-60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/193229680800200315
Taslimi MM, Navabi K, Acosta R, Helmer A, El-Sayed YY. Concealed maternal blood glucose excursions correlate with birth weight centile. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008 May;2(3):456-60. doi: 10.1177/193229680800200315. PMID: 19885210; PMCID: PMC2769734.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008 May;2(3):456-60. doi: 10.1177/193229680800200315.

Concealed maternal blood glucose excursions correlate with birth weight centile.

Journal of diabetes science and technology

Masoud Mark Taslimi, Kasra Navabi, Reinaldo Acosta, Amy Helmer, Yasser Y El-Sayed

Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-5317, USA. [email protected]

PMID: 19885210 PMCID: PMC2769734 DOI: 10.1177/193229680800200315

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that maternal blood glucose excursions correlate with deviation from optimized birth weight.

METHODS: Patients were recruited for 3-day continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) plus self-blood glucose monitoring followed by routine diabetes screening at 26-28 weeks gestation. Patients and caregivers were blinded to CGM results. The magnitude and duration of blood glucose (BG) excursions were measured as a "glycemia index." A customized birth weight centile was calculated.

RESULTS: Twenty-three patients consented, 21 completed the study: 5 diabetic and 16 nondiabetic individuals. The duration of CGM was 72 (+/-7.2) hours, and each patient performed self-BG monitoring >/=3 times per day. All diabetic and 10 nondiabetic patients had several measured BG excursions above 130 mg/dl. A positive correlation was observed between birth weight centile and glycemia index above 130 (p < 0.03); the trend persisted for nondiabetic patients alone (p < 0.05). No significant correlation was noted between birth weight centile and average 3-day CGM values, 3-day fasting BG, average 3-day self-BG monitoring values, or diabetes screening BG value.

CONCLUSIONS: The glycemia index has a better correlation with birth weight centile than BG measured by conventional methods in a mixed diabetic and nondiabetic population. Fetal exposure to maternal blood glucose excursions correlates positively with fetal growth, even in nondiabetic patients with apparently normal glucose tolerance.

Keywords: CGM; diabetes; fetus; glucose; growth; pregnancy

References

  1. Diabetes Care. 1995 May;18(5):611-7 - PubMed
  2. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2007 Aug;77(2):174-9 - PubMed
  3. Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Mar;103(3):526-33 - PubMed
  4. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2005 Sep;69(3):279-86 - PubMed
  5. JAMA. 1996 Apr 17;275(15):1165-70 - PubMed
  6. Diabetes Care. 1998 Apr;21(4):518-24 - PubMed
  7. JAMA. 2001 May 16;285(19):2486-97 - PubMed
  8. Diabetes Care. 2001 Jul;24(7):1259-63 - PubMed
  9. Endocr Pract. 2006 May-Jun;12(3):245-50 - PubMed
  10. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005 Aug;10(4):333-9 - PubMed
  11. Diabetes Care. 2004 Jan;27 Suppl 1:S88-90 - PubMed
  12. JAMA. 2002 Jan 16;287(3):356-9 - PubMed
  13. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Dec 1;150(7):836-42 - PubMed
  14. Rev Diabet Stud. 2006 Fall;3(3):134-42 - PubMed
  15. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007 Jun;47(3):186-90 - PubMed
  16. Lancet. 1996 Jan 27;347(8996):227-30 - PubMed
  17. Mymensingh Med J. 2005 Jul;14(2):196-8 - PubMed
  18. Diabetes Care. 1998 Dec;21(12):2191-2 - PubMed

Publication Types