孕前超重及肥胖对孕期体质量控制及妊娠结局的影响

目的:评估孕前超重及肥胖对孕期体质量控制及妊娠结局的影响。方法:回顾性收集2015年1月—2017年12月于我院分娩足月单胎孕妇的孕前体质量指数(BMI)、孕期体质量变化及妊娠结局等资料,比较孕前超重、肥胖孕妇与孕前体质量正常孕妇的孕期体质量控制情况及妊娠结局,多因素分析孕前超重及肥胖对孕期体质量控制及妊娠结局的影响。结果:纳入超重孕妇496例(超重组),肥胖孕妇44例(肥胖组)以及体质量正常孕妇(对照组)540例,超重、肥胖及对照组的孕前BMI分别为26.3(2.0)kg/m~2、31.3(2.9)kg/m~2及20.7(2.5)kg/m~2。超重、肥胖组的孕期体质量超标比例高于对照组(分别为63.9%、72.7%及41.3%),超重及肥胖组孕妇的子痫前期、妊娠期糖尿病及剖宫产风险均高于体质量正常孕妇。超重及肥胖组的新生儿平均出生体质量高于正常组[分别为(3 528.0±397.4)kg、(3 562.6±417.6)kg及(3 387.8±384.5)kg,巨大儿比例也呈升高趋势(分别为12.3%、15.9%及5.0%)。多因素分析结果显示孕前超重(OR=3.071,95%CI:2.345～4.022)及肥胖(OR=5.113,95%CI:2.507～10.431)是孕期体质量超标的影响因素,同时对子痫前期(P0.001)、妊娠期糖尿病(P0.001)、剖宫产(P0.05)及巨大儿(P0.05)风险均有显著影响。结论:孕前超重及肥胖不仅显著影响孕期体质量控制结局(尤其是孕期体质量超标风险),同时对包括子痫前期、妊娠期糖尿病、剖宫产、巨大儿风险在内的妊娠结局也影响显著;孕前体质量控制对于超重及肥胖的育龄妇女具有重要意义。     

IOM孕期体质量控制标准对上海地区孕妇的适用情况初探

目的:评估美国科学院医学院(IOM)孕期体质量控制标准是否适用于上海地区孕妇。方法:回顾性收集2014年1月至2015年3月于同济大学附属第一妇婴保健院分娩产妇的孕期体质量变化及妊娠结局资料,按WHO体质量分类标准将孕前体质量分为体质量过低组、正常组、超重组、肥胖组,按孕期体质量控制是否符合IOM标准进行分组(未达标、达标、超标),比较不同组别包括出生体质量在内的各种妊娠结局,分析IOM体质量控制标准在上海地区人群中的适用情况。结果:纳入研究资料齐全孕妇6915例,体质量过低、正常、超重、肥胖的孕妇分别占15.7%(1086例)、76.4%(5281例)、7.3%(502例)及0.7%(46例),仅43.3%(2991/6915)孕妇孕期体质量控制达到IOM体质量控制标准。未达标、达标及超标组间,除低体质量组的巨大儿发生率,正常组的子痫前期、妊娠期糖尿病、剖宫产率、巨大儿发生率、低出生体质量及巨大儿总发生率,超重组的妊娠期糖尿病、巨大儿发生率外,其余差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。孕期体质量变化与低出生体质量儿及巨大儿联合风险曲线图显示,当孕期体质量控制低于IOM时,风险最低。结论:IOM推荐孕期体质量控制范围不适用于上海地区孕妇,上海地区孕妇可能需要更严格的孕期体质量控制以改善包括新生儿出生体质量在内的妊娠结局。     

农村妇女孕期体重对妊娠结局的影响

目的:探讨农村妇女孕期体重与妊娠结局的关系,为农村孕妇的体重管理提供理论依据。方法:收集2014年2月至2015年2月禹城市人民医院产一科住院分娩的单胎妊娠农村初产妇896例,按孕前体重指数(BMI)分为孕前消瘦组(≤18.5kg/m~2)、孕前体重正常组(18.5kg/m~2BMI24kg/m~2)、超重组(24kg/m2≤BMI28kg/m~2)、肥胖组(≥28kg/m~2);按孕期体重增长分为体重增长适宜组及体重增长过度组。分析各组孕妇妊娠结局及并发症的发生情况。结果:孕前超重组与孕前体重正常组比较,孕期体重增长过度组与孕期体重增长适宜组比较,均显著增加妊娠期高血压疾病、妊娠期糖尿病、剖宫产、产后出血、巨大儿的风险,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:孕前超重与孕期体重增长过度是导致农村孕妇不良妊娠结局的危险因素,应加强孕妇的体重管理,降低妊娠不良结局发生。     

双胎妊娠孕期体质量增长与妊娠结局关系的研究

目的:探讨孕前不同体质量指数(BMI)的双胎孕妇孕期体质量增长的适宜值,及其与妊娠结局的关系。方法:回顾性分析2018年1月至2020年12月在桂林医学院附属医院产科住院分娩的313例双胎孕妇,按照中国肥胖问题研究专题组提出的判断标准,按孕前BMI将调查对象划分为4组：<18.5 kg/m~2为低体质量组(10例),18.5～24.0 kg/m~2为正常体质量组(192例),24.0～28.0 kg/m~2为超重组(93例),≥28.0 kg/m~2为肥胖组(18例)。按照IOM推荐的双胎足月孕期增重范围,分为增重不足组(120例)、增重适宜组(153例)和增重过多组(40例),研究孕期增重与母体并发症及新生儿出生结局的关系。选择孕周≥37周且活产双胎新生儿平均出生体质量≥2500 g的孕妇共计131例,计算不同BMI双胎孕妇孕期增重的P25～P75,确定孕期体质量增长的适宜范围。采用(印)χ(正)~2检验和多因素Logistic回归分析方法对数据进行统计学分析。结果:(1)与孕前正常体质量组相比,孕前超重组及肥胖组均减少了新生儿平均出生体质量<2500 g的风险[超重组((印)OR(正) 0.551,95%CI 0.334～0.909),肥胖组((印)OR(正) 0.321,95%CI 0.115～0.891)],孕前超重组出现新生儿窒息的风险减少((印)OR(正) 0.353,95%CI 0.151～0.826),但孕前肥胖可增加妊娠期糖尿病((印)OR(正) 3.914,95%CI 1.443～10.618)及子痫前期((印)OR(正) 5.147,95%CI 1.715～15.451)的风险,差异均有统计学意义((印)P(正)<0.05)。(2)与孕期增重适宜组相比,孕期增重不足增加早产((印)OR(正) 3.297,95%CI 2.000～5.433)和至少有1个为小于胎龄儿((印)OR(正) 2.732,95%CI 1.648～4.530)及新生儿平均出生体质量<2500 g((印)OR(正) 3.922,95%CI 2.319～6.635)的风险,但是可降低剖宫产风险((印)OR(正) 0.407,95%CI 0.217～0.765);与孕期增重适宜组相比,孕期增重过多则增加妊娠期糖尿病((印)OR(正) 2.558,95%CI 1.254～5.219)及子痫前期((印)OR(正) 3.429,95%CI 1.475～7.970)的风险,差异有统计学意义((印)P(正)<0.05)。(3)孕周≥37周分娩,且新生儿平均出生体质量≥2500 g的131例孕妇,孕期总增重P25～P75范围分别为：孕前低体质量为15.50～18.75 kg,正常体质量为12.00～20.00 kg,超重为10.75～19.50 kg,肥胖为10.00～16.50 kg,均低于IOM推荐范围。结论:双胎妊娠孕妇孕期体质量增长与其母婴结局密切相关,应对双胎妊娠孕妇孕期体质量管理加以指导,降低不良妊娠结局的发生风险。     

孕前体质指数及孕期体重增长对妊娠过程及结局的影响

目的:探讨孕前体质指数(BMI)及孕期体重增长(GWG)与妊娠合并疾病及不良结局的关系。方法:回顾分析于复旦大学附属妇产科医院产科门诊定期产前检查并住院分娩的3541例足月单胎初产妇的临床资料。将产妇按孕前体质指数(BMI)和不同孕期体重增长(GWG)分组,采用logistic多因素回归分析孕前体质指数及孕期体重增长与妊娠合并疾病及结局的关系。结果:孕妇孕期体重平均增加(16.0±4.9)kg,新生儿平均出生体重(3341.6±425.9)g,低出生体重儿和巨大儿分别占2.1%及5.1%。根据IOM推荐孕期GWG分组,GWG过低、过高组孕妇与正常孕妇的巨大儿、剖宫产数、早产发生率比较,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。孕前超重、肥胖能增加妊娠期糖尿病(OR=2.7,2.3)、妊娠期高血压疾病(OR=5.4,OR=7.7)、巨大儿(OR=1.6,OR=8.9)、剖宫产(OR=1.4,OR=1.7)的发生风险,而GWG过高增加剖宫产的发生风险(OR=1.5)。结论:孕前BMI不仅影响妊娠合并疾病的发生,也与妊娠结局密切相关。临床上应特别重视孕前宣教及体检,建议育龄期妇女达到合适的体质指数后怀孕。孕期过度体重增长增大了不良妊娠结局(巨大儿、剖宫产)的发生率,临床上可参照IOM推荐体重增长范围进行孕妇体重控制,加强孕期的健康教育和体重随访。同时建议利用大数据多方调研,得出适合中国各地区的孕期体重参考标准。     

孕前BMI对妊娠期疾病及妊娠结局的影响

目的 研究孕前体质量指数(BMI)对妊娠期疾病及妊娠结局的影响。方法 选取180例孕妇,按照孕前BMI不同分为消瘦组(BMI<18.5 kg/m²,28例)、肥胖组(BMI>24.0 kg/m²,107例)、体质量适宜组(BMI 18.5～24.0 kg/m²,45例)。观察并比较三组分娩体质量、新生儿出生体质量、妊娠期疾病与妊娠结局。结果 肥胖组分娩体质量、新生儿出生体质量均高于消瘦组、体质量适宜组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。肥胖组妊娠期高血压疾病发生率、妊娠期糖尿病发生率、巨大儿发生率、剖宫产率均高于消瘦组、体质量适宜组,消瘦组胎儿生长受限发生率高于体质量适宜组、肥胖组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 孕前BMI过高会导致妊娠期疾病,并增加不良妊娠结局,合理营养指导干预能够降低妊娠期疾病发生,改善母婴结局。     

妊娠期高血压、子痫前期及子痫与孕前和孕期体质量及其他因素的相关性研究

目的:探讨妊娠期高血压、子痫前期及子痫与孕前体质量指数(BMI)和孕期体质量增长及其他因素的相关性。方法:本研究纳入2013年1月1日至2014年12月31日在四川大学华西第二医院住院分娩的孕妇共10422例,其中患病组(患妊娠期高血压、子痫前期及子痫)349例,未患病组(未患妊娠期高血压、子痫前期及子痫)10073例。采用Logistics回归分析孕前、孕期体质量及其他因素与妊娠期高血压、子痫前期及子痫的相关性及不同BMI分类与其的相关性。结果:Logistics回归分析示,对于所有孕妇,年龄、孕前BMI过高(包括孕前超重、孕前肥胖)、多胎妊娠、辅助生殖技术受孕、慢性高血压及妊娠期高血压疾病史是妊娠期高血压、子痫及子痫前期的独立危险因素,孕前偏瘦为其保护性因素。通过BMI分层以后,对于孕前BMI正常的孕妇,年龄、BMI、孕期总体质量增长、多胎妊娠、辅助生殖技术、慢性高血压、妊娠期高血压疾病史是3种疾病的独立危险因素;对于孕前超重的孕妇,其危险因素只包括孕前BMI、辅助生殖技术受孕和慢性高血压。结论:孕前BMI过高、多胎妊娠、辅助生殖技术受孕、妊娠期高血压疾病史使妊娠期高血压、子痫及子痫前期的发生风险明显增加;孕前BMI、辅助生殖技术受孕和慢性高血压可能增加孕前体质量正常和超重孕妇妊娠期高血压、子痫及子痫前期的发生风险;孕期体质量增长与妊娠期高血压、子痫及子痫前期的发生关系不明显。     

孕妇体质量及其他因素与分娩巨大儿的相关性研究

目的:探讨孕妇孕前和孕期体质量及有关因素与分娩巨大儿的相关性,为其预防提供指导。方法:选择2013年1月1日至2014年12月31日在四川大学华西第二医院住院分娩符合纳入标准的孕产妇10044例,其中分娩巨大儿466例,非巨大儿9578例。采用Logistics回归分析孕妇体质量及其他因素(妊娠期糖尿病、分娩巨大儿史、多胎妊娠等)与分娩巨大儿的相关性及不同BMI分类与分娩巨大儿的相关性。结果:(1)孕前BMI、孕期总体质量增长、妊娠期糖尿病及既往分娩过巨大儿是分娩巨大儿的独立危险因素(P0.05);多胎妊娠是分娩巨大儿的保护因素(P0.05)。(2)通过BMI分层后,对于孕前BMI正常者,孕期体质量增长过少和多胎妊娠是分娩巨大儿的保护因素(P0.05);孕期总体质量增长、孕期体质量增长过多、有巨大儿分娩史是分娩巨大儿的独立危险因素(P0.05)。对于孕前体质量过轻者,孕期总体质量增长和孕期体质量增长过多是分娩巨大儿独立危险因素(P0.05)。对于孕前超重的孕妇,孕期总体质量增长和妊娠期糖尿病是分娩巨大儿独立危险因素(P0.05)。结论:孕前BMI过高、孕期体质量增长过多、发生妊娠期糖尿病及既往分娩巨大儿史均可使再次妊娠发生巨大儿的风险明显增高;孕前不同BMI孕妇其分娩巨大儿的危险因素有不同,孕期体质量增长过多可能增加孕前偏瘦和体质量正常孕妇巨大儿的发生风险。     

正常妊娠结局的单胎妊娠孕妇体质量增长模式

目的:了解妊娠期规律产前检查未发生不良结局的单胎孕妇妊娠期体质量增长模式。方法:采用回顾性研究,纳入2013年1月至2014年12月妊娠满37周但不超过42周在四川大学华西第二医院住院分娩的孕产妇,采集包括人口学资料、既往疾病史、家族史、孕产史、身高、妊娠前或建卡时体质量及体质量指数(BMI)、妊娠期间每次产前检查时体质量、分娩前体质量等指标。结果:共纳入4053例孕妇,妊娠前BMI正常(18.5~24 kg/m^2)的孕妇,妊娠16周体质量增长平均值为2.45±1.43 kg,妊娠40周体质量增长平均值为15.53±3.59 kg;妊娠前偏瘦(BMI<18.5 kg/m^2)的孕妇,妊娠16周体质量增长平均值为2.57±1.34 kg,妊娠40周体质量增长平均值为16.01±3.42 kg;妊娠前BMI超重(24~28 kg/m^2)的孕妇,妊娠16周体质量增长平均值为2.39±1.44 kg,妊娠40周体质量增长平均值为14.11±3.86 kg;妊娠前肥胖(BMI≥28 kg/m^2)的孕妇,妊娠16周体质量增长平均值为2.17±0.74 kg,妊娠39周体质量增长平均值为12.27±4.07 kg。结论:我院妊娠前BMI正常、偏瘦、超重和肥胖的孕妇适宜的妊娠期体质量增长范围分别为15.53±3.59 kg、16.01±3.42 kg、14.11±3.86 kg和12.27±4.07 kg。     

孕前超重/肥胖对母儿结局及产程的影响研究

目的:探讨孕前超重/肥胖对母儿结局及产程的影响。方法:回顾分析2017年6月至2018年5月于南方医科大学珠江医院定期产检的单胎足月、头先露、选择阴道试产且临床资料齐全的初产妇649例,按孕前体重指数(BMI)分为3组:低体重组(BMI18.5kg/m~2,174例)、正常体重组(BMI为18.5～23.9kg/m~2,396例)、超重肥胖组(BMI≥24kg/m~2,79例)。结果:超重肥胖组的妊娠期糖尿病(31.6%)、妊娠期高血压疾病(19.0%)发生率均高于正常体重组(18.4%,3.5%),差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。低体重组的妊娠期糖尿病发生率(10.3%)低于正常体重组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。超重肥胖组的剖宫产(31.6%)、球囊引产(35.4%)、缩宫素静滴发生率(49.4%)均高于正常体重组(16.4%、22.5%、34.3%),差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。低体重组的球囊引产(10.3%)及缩宫素静滴(21.3%)发生率均低于正常体重组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。3组的第一产程、第二产程、第三产程及总产程比较,差异均无统计学意义。结论:孕前BMI超重及肥胖会对母儿带来不良影响,增加不良妊娠结局、产时干预及剖宫产风险。对育龄期女性应加重孕前管理,使孕前BMI控制在正常范围。     

妊娠期糖尿病合并慢性高血压孕妇胰岛素抵抗水平及其对妊娠结局的影响

目的探讨妊娠期糖尿病(gestational diabetes mellitus,GDM)合并慢性高血压(chronic hypertension,CHT)孕妇的胰岛素抵抗(insulin resistance,IR)水平及其对妊娠结局的影响。方法本研究为回顾性病例对照研究。纳入2014年1月1日至2016年12月31日在北京大学第一医院规律产前检查并参加GDM一日门诊的单胎妊娠GDM孕妇2457例。回顾临床资料,采用稳态模型评估IR水平(homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance,HOMA-IR)。根据GDM孕妇是否合并CHT分为GDM合并CHT组(n=47)和GDM未合并CHT组(n=2410),并进一步根据孕前体重指数(body mass index,BMI)分为孕前BMI正常组(n=1590)及孕前超重和肥胖组(n=863)进行分层分析。采用两独立样本t检验、χ2检验分析组间孕妇年龄、HOMA-IR、孕前BMI、孕期增重、血糖等临床特征的差异。采用logistic回归模型分析HOMR-IR水平对妊娠结局的影响。结果合并CHT的GDM孕妇HOMA-IR(3.5±1.8与2.6±1.5,t=-3.290)、空腹血浆葡萄糖[(5.4±0.5)与(5.2±0.5)mmol/L,t=-3.005]、孕前BMI[(26.7±4.7)与(23.3±3.4)kg/m2,t=-4.842]以及发生子痫前期的比例[14.9%(7/47)与2.5%(61/2410),χ2=21.790]高于未合并CHT的GDM孕妇,但孕期增重少于未合并CHT者[(9.6±5.8)与(12.2±4.7)kg,t=3.790](P值均<0.01)。根据孕前BMI分层后,超重和肥胖孕妇中,GDM合并CHT组子痫前期的比例高于GDM未合并CHT组[15.2%(5/33)与4.2%(35/830),χ2=6.290,P=0.012],但HOMA-IR差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);而对于孕前BMI正常的孕妇,GDM合并CHT组HOMA-IR(3.0±1.5与2.3±1.2,t=-2.217)、空腹血浆葡萄糖[(5.4±0.5)与(5.1±0.5)mmol/L,t=-2.299]和子痫前期的比例[2/14与1.6%(26/1576),χ2=6.545]均高于未合并CHT组(P值均<0.05)。对于GDM合并CHT孕妇,HOMA-IR水平不会增加剖宫产、早产、大于胎龄儿、小于胎龄儿和巨大儿的发生风险(P值均>0.05)。控制年龄、空腹血浆葡萄糖、孕前BMI、孕期增重后,对于未合并CHT的GDM孕妇,HOMA-IR水平的增加会使早产的发生风险增加(OR=1.223,95%CI:1.093~1.369,P<0.001)。结论GDM合并CHT孕妇胰岛素抵抗程度更重,子痫前期的发病率更高,但其他不良妊娠结局的发生风险未见增加。     

Maternal obesity as a risk factor in gestational diabetes

Maternal obesity has been associated with both gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and neonatal macrosomia. Most studies of obesity in pregnancy have demonstrated an increased risk for GDM. However, the contribution of obesity as an added risk in GDM has not been examined. The purpose of this study was to examine the contribution of obesity as a risk factor to perinatal morbidity in gestationally diabetic women by comparing the maternal and neonatal outcome in obese and nonobese gestationally diabetic women. From 1979 to 1983, the maternal, intrapartum, and neonatal characteristics of all prepartum gravid patients with GDM were examined. Of the 158 patients with documented GDM, 62 (39%) were obese (weight greater than 90 kg). There was no difference in maternal age (obese 29.3 +/- 5.4 years, nonobese 28.7 +/- 6.5 years) parity, or prepartum risk score between the obese and nonobese patients. The incidence of prematurity, pre-eclampsia, fetal distress, and primary cesarean sections were not different between the groups. There were no differences in Apgar scores, gestational age, or perinatal morbidity. However, the obese patients delivered heavier neonates expressed as mean birthweight (obese 3667 +/- 682 gms, nonobese 3331 +/- 750 gms. P less than .01), the number of macrosomic (greater than 4 kg) neonates (obese 37%, nonobese 14%, P less than .001) and K-score, (obese 0.8 +/- 1, nonobese 0.4 +/- 9, P less than .05). These data indicate that obese patients with GDM have an increased risk of neonatal macrosomia.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Pregnancy outcome in obese and morbidly obese gestational diabetic women

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether pregnancy outcome differs between obese and morbidly obese GDM patients and to assess pregnancy outcome in association with mode of treatment and level of glycemic control. METHODS: A cohort study of 4,830 patients with gestational diabetes (GDM), treated in the same center using the same diabetic protocol, was performed. Obesity was defined as prepregnancy BMI >30 and <35 kg/m(2); morbid obesity was defined as prepregnancy BMI >or=35 kg/m(2). Well-controlled GDM was defined as mean blood glucose <105 mg/dl. Pregnancy outcome measures included the rates of large for gestational age (LGA) and macrosomic babies, metabolic complications, the need for NICU admission and/or respiratory support, rate of shoulder dystocia, and the rate of cesarean section. RESULTS: Among the GDM patients, the rates of obesity and morbid obesity were 15.7% (760 out of 4830, BMI: 32.4+/-1.6 kg/m(2)) and 11.6% (559 out of 4830, BMI: 42.6+/-2.2 kg/m(2)), respectively. No differences were found with regard to maternal age, ethnicity, gestational age at delivery or oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) results. Moreover, similar rates of cesarean section, fetal macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, composite outcome, and metabolic complications were noted. Insulin treatment was initiated for 62% of the obese and 73% of the morbidly obese GDM patients (P<0.002). Similar rates of obese and morbidly obese patients achieved desired levels of glycemic control (63% versus 61%, respectively). In both obese and morbidly obese patients who achieved a desired level of glycemic control (<105 mg/dl), no difference was found in pregnancy outcome except that both neonatal metabolic complications and composite outcomes were more prevalent in diet-treated subjects in comparison to insulin-treated GDM patients. CONCLUSION: In obese women with GDM, pregnancy outcome is compromised regardless of the level of obesity or treatment modality.     

Obstetric outcome following laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate obstetric outcomes following laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) in obese women. METHODS: Obstetric outcomes were compared in a retrospective case-control study with 427 obese women, 13 who underwent LABG and 414 who did not. RESULTS: The mean weight gain during pregnancy was significantly lower in the LABG group than among controls (5.5 kg vs. 7.1 kg; P<0.05). The incidence of pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus, low birth weight, and fetal macrosomia was less in the LABG group (P<0.05), and the incidence of cesarean deliveries during labor was half in the LAGB group (15.3% vs. 34.4%; P<0.01). Neonatal outcomes were not significantly different in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among obese women, the incidence of adverse obstetric outcomes was less in those who underwent LABG than in those who did not. These results suggest that obese women who wish to become pregnant would decrease their risk of obstetric complications if they first underwent LAGB.     

Maternal obesity: can pregnancy weight gain modify risk of selected adverse pregnancy outcomes?

Reports by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommend that gestational weight gain goals should be modified according to prepregnancy body mass index (BMI), which could result in better maternal and infant outcomes. The authors assessed whether the risk of the pregnancy outcomes such as rate of cesarean section to primiparous and multiparous women, macrosomia, and breastfeeding at 10 weeks postpartum can be modified by following the IOM guidelines for gestational weight gain irrespective of prepregnancy BMI. Staff from the New Jersey Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System interviewed a sample of women who delivered live births in New Jersey during 2002 through 2005 (n = 7661). In New Jersey, 18% of mothers were obese, 13% were overweight, and 16% were underweight. In logistic regression analyses, after controlling for maternal characteristics, the effect of prepregnancy obesity and weight gain more than 34 lb independently and significantly increased the risk of all four adverse outcomes. For no outcomes was the 25- to 34-pound weight gain category significantly distinguishable from the 16- to 24-pound reference category. These results strongly support the idea that the IOM weight gain recommendation (education during preconception regarding the importance of optimal BMI at the start of pregnancy) will help to achieve better pregnancy outcomes in obese and overweight women.     

The association between glucose challenge test, obesity and pregnancy outcome in 6390 non-diabetic women.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between obesity, glucose challenge test (GCT) and pregnancy outcome. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 6854 consecutive gravid patients screened for gestational diabetes (GDM) using 50-gram GCT, at 24-28 weeks' gestation was performed. A screening value 130 mg/dl was followed by 100 gr oral GTT. Patients who were diagnosed with GDM were excluded. For purpose of analysis patients were categorized by prepregnancy BMI and by different GCT thresholds. Maternal outcome was defined by rate of preeclampsia, gestational age at delivery, cesarean section (CS) rate and the need for labor induction. Neonatal outcome was defined by fetal size (macrosomia/LGA), arterial cord pH, respiratory complications and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. RESULTS: Overall, a positive GCT result (GCT > or = 130 mg/dl) was identified in 2541/6854 (37%) women. GDM was further diagnosed in 464/6854 (6.8%) of subjects. In both groups of screening results ( > 130 mg/dl and < 130 mg/dl), the obese women were significantly older, gained more weight during pregnancy and had a lower rate of nulliparity in comparison to the non obese women. The obese women had higher rates of macrosomia, LGA and induction of labor. No difference was found in mean birth weight, the total rate of cesarean section, preterm delivery, 5 minute Apgar score < or = 7, mean arterial cord pH, NICU admission and a need for respiratory support in comparison to non obese women in both groups of screening results. A gradual increase in the rate of macrosomia, LGA and cesarean section was identified in both obese and non-obese women in relation to increasing GCT severity categories. CONCLUSION: Fetal size and cesarean section rate are associated with the degree of carbohydrate intolerance (screening results). Furthermore, obesity remains the main contributor impacting fetal size.     

Gestational diabetes: screening,diagnosis, treatment and management

Gestational diabetes (GDM) is a common medical condition in pregnancy, and is associated with a range of short and long term maternal and infant complications including pre-eclampsia, pre-term birth, caesarean section, stillbirth, macrosomia and large-for-gestational age, neonatal hypoglycaemia, and increased risk of later type 2 diabetes in both mother and offspring. The incidence of complications can be reduced and pregnancy outcomes for these women are generally good with effective management of hyperglycaemia using regular monitoring of blood glucose, antenatal care with a multidisciplinary team, diet and lifestyle intervention, and pharmacotherapy. Risk of recurrence in future pregnancies, and of later development of type 2 diabetes is high in women with GDM. Attention should be given to screening and reducing risk in women who have experienced GDM, with encouragement of breastfeeding, diet and lifestyle intervention, weight management, and possibly metformin.     

Prepregnancy body mass index and adverse pregnancy outcomes

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between prepregnancy BMI, and adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. METHOD: In this retrospective cohort study 916 consecutive singleton gestations were included who gave birth between 1 January 2006 and 31 August 2006 at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Udine, Italy. Statistical analysis was performed using univaried logistic regression and measured by odds ratio. RESULTS: The obese patients had a statistically, significantly increased incidence of Caesarean section (OR = 2.17, p = 0.009). Women with overweight (OR = 2.43, p = 0.002) and obese weight (OR = 4.86, p < 0.0001) were at increased risk for preterm deliveries. The pre-eclampsia and the fetal macrosomia (> or =4,000 g) were increased in obese women (OR = 5.68, p < 0.0001; OR = 2.58, p = 0.033, respectively). CONCLUSION: Maternal prepregnancy obesity is significantly associated with increased risk of Caesarean section, preterm delivery, pre-eclampsia and macrosomia.