Diabetes Group Prenatal Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of diabetes group prenatal care on rates of preterm birth and large for gestational age (LGA) among patients with diabetes in pregnancy compared with individual diabetes prenatal care. DATA SOURCES: We searched Ovid Medline (1946-), Embase.com (1947-), Scopus (1823-), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing diabetes group prenatal care with individual care among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus or gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The primary outcomes were preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation and LGA (birth weight at or above the 90th percentile). Secondary outcomes were small for gestational age, cesarean delivery, neonatal hypoglycemia, neonatal intensive care unit admission, breastfeeding at hospital discharge, long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) uptake, and 6-week postpartum visit attendance. Secondary outcomes, limited to the subgroup of patients with GDM, included rates of GDM requiring diabetes medication (A2GDM) and completion of postpartum oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT). Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I2 statistic. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Eight studies met study criteria and were included in the final analysis: three RCTs and five observational studies. A total of 1,701 patients were included in the pooled studies: 770 (45.3%) in diabetes group prenatal care and 931 (54.7%) in individual care. Patients in diabetes group prenatal care had similar rates of preterm birth compared with patients in individual care (seven studies: pooled rates 9.5% diabetes group prenatal care vs 11.5% individual care, pooled RR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.59-1.01), which held for RCTs and observational studies. There was no difference between diabetes group prenatal care and individual care in rates of LGA overall (four studies: pooled rate 16.7% diabetes group prenatal care vs 20.2% individual care, pooled RR 0.93, 95% CI, 0.59-1.45) or by study type. Rates of other secondary outcomes were similar between diabetes group prenatal care and individual care, except patients in diabetes group prenatal care were more likely to receive postpartum LARC (three studies: pooled rates 46.1% diabetes group prenatal care vs 34.1% individual care, pooled RR 1.44, 95% CI, 1.09-1.91). When analysis was limited to patients with GDM, there were no differences in rates of A2GDM or postpartum visit attendance, but patients in diabetes group prenatal care were significantly more likely to complete postpartum OGTT (five studies: pooled rate 74.0% diabetes group prenatal care vs 49.4% individual care, pooled RR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.19-2.09). CONCLUSION: Patients with type 2 diabetes and GDM who participate in diabetes group prenatal care have similar rates of preterm birth, LGA, and other pregnancy outcomes compared with those who participate in individual care; however, they are significantly more likely to receive postpartum LARC, and those with GDM are more likely to return for postpartum OGTT. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42021279233.

The role of technology in the care of diabetes mellitus in pregnancy: an expert review.

Diabetes mellitus is one of the most commonly encountered pregnancy complications and is associated with multiple adverse perinatal outcomes. Technology has progressed to address the unique challenges patients face in managing diabetes mellitus in pregnancy. Technology has bolstered diabetes mellitus education with smartphone applications focused on nutrition counseling and carbohydrate intake advice. Continuous glucose monitors and insulin infusion systems have shown benefit by simplifying glycemic monitoring and insulin administration. Improvements in glycemic control and perinatal outcomes have been seen with continuous glucose monitor use when compared with intermittent blood glucose monitoring, and more pregnant people are using insulin pumps instead of multiple daily insulin injections. Hybrid closed-loop systems are emerging and are able to integrate continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump technologies while maximizing automated features in the nonpregnant population, but these have not been endorsed for use in pregnancy yet. Applying telehealth practices has been associated with high patient satisfaction among those with diabetes mellitus in pregnancy, and leveraging remote patient monitoring through telehealth platforms and short-range wireless technologies can reduce the burden of patient visits. As technology becomes more integrated into routine management of diabetes mellitus in pregnancy, practitioners should emphasize individualized counseling and device selection to ensure patient autonomy and safety.

Heterogeneity in management of category II fetal tracings: data from a multihospital healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Electronic fetal monitoring is widely used to identify and intervene in suspected fetal hypoxia and/or acidemia. Category II fetal heart rate tracings are the most common class of fetal monitoring in labor, and intrauterine resuscitation is recommended given the association of category II fetal heart rate tracings with fetal acidemia. However, limited published data are available to guide intrauterine resuscitation technique selection, leading to heterogeneity in the response to category II fetal heart rate tracings. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize approaches to intrauterine resuscitation in response to category II fetal heart rate tracings. STUDY DESIGN: This was a survey study administered to labor unit nurses and delivering clinicians (physicians and midwives) across 7 hospitals in a Midwestern healthcare system spanning 2 states. The survey posed 3 category II fetal heart rate tracing scenarios (recurrent late decelerations, minimal variability, and recurrent variable decelerations) and asked participants to select first- and second-line intrauterine resuscitation management strategies. The participants were asked to quantify the level of influence certain factors have on their choice using a scale from 1 to 5. Intrauterine resuscitation strategy selection was compared by clinical role and hospital type (nurses vs delivering clinicians and university-affiliated hospital vs non-university-affiliated hospital). RESULTS: Of 610 providers invited to take the survey, 163 participated (response rate of 27%): 37% of participants from university-affiliated hospitals, 62% of nurses, and 37% of physicians. Maternal repositioning was the most selected first-line strategy, regardless of the type of category II fetal heart rate tracing. First-line management varied by clinical role and hospital affiliation for each fetal heart rate tracing scenario, particularly for minimal variability, which was associated with the most heterogeneity in the first-line approach. Previous experience and recommendations from professional societies were the most influential factors in intrauterine resuscitation selection overall. Of note, 16.5% of participants reported that published evidence did not influence their choice at all. Participants from a university-affiliated hospital were more likely than participants from a non-university-affiliated hospital to consider patient preference when selecting an intrauterine resuscitation technique. Nurses and delivering clinicians differed significantly in the rationale for management choices: nurses were more often influenced by advice from other healthcare providers on the team (P<.001), whereas delivering clinicians were more influenced by literature (P=.02) and ease of technique (P=.02). CONCLUSION: There was significant heterogeneity in the management of category II fetal heart rate tracing. In addition, motivations for choice in intrauterine resuscitation technique varied by hospital type and clinical role. These factors should be considered when creating fetal monitoring and intrauterine resuscitation protocols.

Gestational Diabetes: Importance of Follow-up Screening for the Benefit of Long-term Health.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is the most common obstetric metabolic disorder. Long-term health consequences, including type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease, are common with GDM. Postpartum glucose screening is recommended for women with a prior GDM pregnancy. Rates of postpartum screening compliance remain low. Interventions ranging from appointment reminder systems to personalized chronic disease education are being used, emphasizing future chronic disease risk for patients with a history of GDM. With these practice changes, clinicians can more thoroughly engage in the early identification, intervention, and prevention of chronic disease for women with a history of GDM.