GD again (FAO Ericka)

Vicky Bilaniuk wrote:

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

There really aren't any signs of GD. If you believe

Well they told me to watch out for things like increased thirst. There
was something else, but I might be confusing it with preeclampsia
symptoms (weight gain?).

Many (most) women who have GD will have no symptoms.
Excessive thirst is a symptom of diabetes, but often will
not show at all with GD.

it is essential to diagnose GD, then the only way to do it
with any reliability at all is by blood test.

And sadly, even that can be unreliable, if it's anything like testing
for normal diabetes, at least. That's why I got tested multiple times,
in the past. They wouldn't trust just one no. I forget now, but I know
I was tested at least 2 or 3 times. My results were always so normal
that I never had to do a 3 hour test.

The one hour test is a screening test with fairly
low replicability. The three hour test is the gold standard.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Donna Metler wrote:

Is there any good reason for me to test for GD, since I know this will be a
C-section anyway? I can't see where having a large baby is a problem, and
from what I've read, that's the only thing which seems conclusively linked
to GD. I'm having enough blood drawn and testing done in this pregnancy, it
would be really nice to be able to skip SOMETHING and avoid the stress!

Well, in my opinion, it's not necessary to
test even if you're having a vaginal birth ;-) If you
ask others, you'll get different results. True
Believers will insist that it's vital that you test
for and diagnose GD because you absolutely must
treat with diet and maybe insulin to avoid all sorts
of potential horrific outcomes like birth defects,
neonatal hypoglycemia, and such. I think the research
on any of those is very weak. If it were *me*, I
would refuse the test if I had reasonable assurance
that I wasn't a true diabetic. But then again, I
refused all three times for vaginal births ;-)
YMMV.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Donna Metler" wrote
Is there any good reason for me to test for GD, since I know this will be
a
C-section anyway? I can't see where having a large baby is a problem, and
from what I've read, that's the only thing which seems conclusively linked
to GD. I'm having enough blood drawn and testing done in this pregnancy,
it
would be really nice to be able to skip SOMETHING and avoid the stress!

Just anecdotal stuff, but I was diagnosed with GD and E was 5 lbs. 9 oz. at
birth (at 37 weeks when I went into spontaneous labor) so that's not what
anyone would call a large baby. I know other women who were diagnosed with
GD who also didn't have particularly large babies.
--
Melissa (in Los Angeles)
Mum to Elizabeth 4/13/03
and ??? due early 3/05

"Donna Metler" wrote
Is there any good reason for me to test for GD, since I know this will be
a
C-section anyway? I can't see where having a large baby is a problem, and
from what I've read, that's the only thing which seems conclusively linked
to GD.

Possible problems of undiagnosed GD include hypoglycemia in the newborn (due to
the newborn having had to produce lots of extra insulin during the pregnancy,
and therefore having a "woops" after the birth, when all of a sudden no one is
sending it lots of sugar) and a greater chance of the baby itself developing
diabetes later in life. I don't know how strongly these are linked to GD versus
actual diabetes in the mom (the latter is obviously far more dangerous).

Personally I would have refused the testing the second time around (my midwife
would have been happy to let me), except for the fact that I have a brother
with diabetes, so what I was worried about was undiagnosed type II or
something. Since I'd passed the test with the twins, nowhere even close to the
cutoff, I was pretty sure I was not too likely to get a false positive with a
singleton, and I didn't.

I think it might actually be *less* stressful to get the test than to have to
argue your way out of it (given that you're under high-risk type management
anyway), but you know your doctor best.

--Helen

Beach mum wrote:


Just anecdotal stuff, but I was diagnosed with GD and E was 5 lbs. 9 oz. at
birth (at 37 weeks when I went into spontaneous labor) so that's not what
anyone would call a large baby. I know other women who were diagnosed with
GD who also didn't have particularly large babies.

*Most* women who have GD do not have macrosomic babies.
(And most macrosomic babies are born to women who do not have
GD ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

H Schinske wrote:


Possible problems of undiagnosed GD include hypoglycemia in the newborn (due to
the newborn having had to produce lots of extra insulin during the pregnancy,
and therefore having a "woops" after the birth, when all of a sudden no one is
sending it lots of sugar)

a) At least one study has found that neonatal hypoglycemia is
better correlated with glycemic control during labor than
with glycemic control during the pregnancy.
b) The biggest danger is mom being starved while in labor.

and a greater chance of the baby itself developing
diabetes later in life. I don't know how strongly these are linked to GD versus
actual diabetes in the mom (the latter is obviously far more dangerous).

And also the studies are terribly confounded both
with true diabetics diagnosed with GD (because they were first
diagnosed during pregnancy) and also with the fact that
women with GD tend to have more risk factors for type 2,
most prevalently that they tend to be overweight or obese--
and tend to pass on those tendencies to their children as
well.

Best wishes,
Ericka