If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
3 hour glucose test question (long)
My wife took her 1 hour test at 29 weeks, which is last week, and the
value was 145. Our OB says it should be below 140. So she took the 3 hours test this week. The results is not good. 1 hour: 198 2 hour: 158 3 hour: 109 OB nurse says the cutoff lines are 180, 155 and 145, if I remember those number right. So they said she has gestational diabetes and need to see a dietitian. I looked on this forum and also diabetes forums, there seems to be several scales: NDDG (National Diabetes Data Group) - most common Fasting - 105 One Hour - 190 Two Hour - 165 Three Hour - 145 Carpenter Scale Fasting - 95 One Hour - 180 Two Hour - 155 Three Hour - 140 Coustan Cutoffs Fasting - 95 One Hour - 180 Two Hour - 160 Three Hour 140 Which one should we follow. But I have to say that the test results after 1 hour and 2 hour are not good, while the last one is very normal. BTW, my wife has a small figure, 5 feet 2" and 125lb now. Does that have anything to do with those results. She is very healthy, better than me. During the last two weeks, she's not gainning any weight. Over 30 weeks, the weight gain is only about 10 lbs. 30 weeks is ultra sound scan, the original calculation is 32 weeks. Thanks for any commons. Chris |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
3 hour glucose test question (long)
cfd-z wrote:
My wife took her 1 hour test at 29 weeks, which is last week, and the value was 145. Our OB says it should be below 140. So she took the 3 hours test this week. The results is not good. 1 hour: 198 2 hour: 158 3 hour: 109 OB nurse says the cutoff lines are 180, 155 and 145, if I remember those number right. So they said she has gestational diabetes and need to see a dietitian. I looked on this forum and also diabetes forums, there seems to be several scales: NDDG (National Diabetes Data Group) - most common Fasting - 105 One Hour - 190 Two Hour - 165 Three Hour - 145 Carpenter Scale Fasting - 95 One Hour - 180 Two Hour - 155 Three Hour - 140 Coustan Cutoffs Fasting - 95 One Hour - 180 Two Hour - 160 Three Hour 140 Which one should we follow. But I have to say that the test results after 1 hour and 2 hour are not good, while the last one is very normal. BTW, my wife has a small figure, 5 feet 2" and 125lb now. Does that have anything to do with those results. She is very healthy, better than me. During the last two weeks, she's not gainning any weight. Over 30 weeks, the weight gain is only about 10 lbs. 30 weeks is ultra sound scan, the original calculation is 32 weeks. Well, you've got a bit of a dilemma ;-) In general, most of the research I've seen suggests that the more stringent criteria don't improve outcomes relative to the looser criteria. So that would argue for taking the loosest criteria you can find, which in your above examples would have your wife barely exceeding the limit on only one of the samples--which is a borderline failure at best. That said, there's a lot of debate about whether you need to diagnose and treat gestational diabetes at all. If your wife was not diabetic prior to pregnancy, there are quite a few studies that suggest that a diagnosis of GD doesn't mean much, or even if it does, treatment doesn't significantly improve outcomes. Clearly, your wife is neither overweight nor gaining excessive weight with the pregnancy. Those two facts are better predictors of birth weight than GD status. With true diabetes, blood sugars are out of whack from the beginning of the pregnancy, which can lead to significant birth defects. With gestational diabetes, however, blood sugars tend to be elevated just during the third trimester. The risks associated with GD are macrosomia (large baby owing to overfeeding the baby) and neonatal hypoglycemia (low blood sugar owing to excessive insulin levels in the baby who's had to process the extra sugar). You'll find a lot of controversy about these things. First, it's not clear that GD, as defined, is responsible for these problems. The studies are very confounded with at least two major factors: 1) women who are diagnosed with GD are more likely to be overweight, and these problems may be the result of obesity and 2) women who are diagnosed with GD may, in fact, be undiagnosed true diabetics, which may account for the problems. Second, there are many studies showing that treating GD (either with diet or with insulin) has a miserable track record of improving outcomes. So one really has to ask what is worth doing, particularly with marginal test results. The problem you're likely to find, though, is that now that she has these test results on record, they're going to affect her care. For instance, she may well be pressured to be induced early (so the baby doesn't get too big) or may be pressured to have a c-section (if they think the baby is too big--which is not at all well supported by research). If she's perceived as being non-compliant with treatment recommendations, that may also strain her relationship with her caregivers. So it may be challenging to decide what it's in her overall best interests to do. If you want some more information that's somewhat skeptical of GD (but based on high quality, mainstream medical research), check out Henci Goer's _Obstetric Myths versus Research Realities_ or _A Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth_ by Enkins, et al. You can also search Medline at PubMed, but that can be a little confusing as the research is all over the map and it's hard to tell which studies are more accurate without looking at the whole study so you know the methodology involved. Henci Goer provides an annotated bibliography that's an excellent starting point for investigation, and the other book is a summary of recommendations from one of the leading groups devoted to evidence-based medicine (the Cochrane Group). Best wishes, Ericka |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
3 hour glucose test question (long)
My wife does not have diabetes before and this is our first baby. So
we don't have any idea this could happen. Basically, what you said is we don't need to worry too much besides there is not much can be done to this problem, right? We will try to adjust our diet and keep an extra eys on it. As to those possible Doctor's advices, we will think about. As a matter of fact, those blood tests, like AFP test and this one, are supposed to help people in a better condition, but more likely they only make us nervous for nothing. What ever the baby is, we will take it. Thanks again for your advice. Chris Ericka Kammerer wrote in message ... cfd-z wrote: My wife took her 1 hour test at 29 weeks, which is last week, and the value was 145. Our OB says it should be below 140. So she took the 3 hours test this week. The results is not good. 1 hour: 198 2 hour: 158 3 hour: 109 OB nurse says the cutoff lines are 180, 155 and 145, if I remember those number right. So they said she has gestational diabetes and need to see a dietitian. I looked on this forum and also diabetes forums, there seems to be several scales: NDDG (National Diabetes Data Group) - most common Fasting - 105 One Hour - 190 Two Hour - 165 Three Hour - 145 Carpenter Scale Fasting - 95 One Hour - 180 Two Hour - 155 Three Hour - 140 Coustan Cutoffs Fasting - 95 One Hour - 180 Two Hour - 160 Three Hour 140 Which one should we follow. But I have to say that the test results after 1 hour and 2 hour are not good, while the last one is very normal. BTW, my wife has a small figure, 5 feet 2" and 125lb now. Does that have anything to do with those results. She is very healthy, better than me. During the last two weeks, she's not gainning any weight. Over 30 weeks, the weight gain is only about 10 lbs. 30 weeks is ultra sound scan, the original calculation is 32 weeks. Well, you've got a bit of a dilemma ;-) In general, most of the research I've seen suggests that the more stringent criteria don't improve outcomes relative to the looser criteria. So that would argue for taking the loosest criteria you can find, which in your above examples would have your wife barely exceeding the limit on only one of the samples--which is a borderline failure at best. That said, there's a lot of debate about whether you need to diagnose and treat gestational diabetes at all. If your wife was not diabetic prior to pregnancy, there are quite a few studies that suggest that a diagnosis of GD doesn't mean much, or even if it does, treatment doesn't significantly improve outcomes. Clearly, your wife is neither overweight nor gaining excessive weight with the pregnancy. Those two facts are better predictors of birth weight than GD status. With true diabetes, blood sugars are out of whack from the beginning of the pregnancy, which can lead to significant birth defects. With gestational diabetes, however, blood sugars tend to be elevated just during the third trimester. The risks associated with GD are macrosomia (large baby owing to overfeeding the baby) and neonatal hypoglycemia (low blood sugar owing to excessive insulin levels in the baby who's had to process the extra sugar). You'll find a lot of controversy about these things. First, it's not clear that GD, as defined, is responsible for these problems. The studies are very confounded with at least two major factors: 1) women who are diagnosed with GD are more likely to be overweight, and these problems may be the result of obesity and 2) women who are diagnosed with GD may, in fact, be undiagnosed true diabetics, which may account for the problems. Second, there are many studies showing that treating GD (either with diet or with insulin) has a miserable track record of improving outcomes. So one really has to ask what is worth doing, particularly with marginal test results. The problem you're likely to find, though, is that now that she has these test results on record, they're going to affect her care. For instance, she may well be pressured to be induced early (so the baby doesn't get too big) or may be pressured to have a c-section (if they think the baby is too big--which is not at all well supported by research). If she's perceived as being non-compliant with treatment recommendations, that may also strain her relationship with her caregivers. So it may be challenging to decide what it's in her overall best interests to do. If you want some more information that's somewhat skeptical of GD (but based on high quality, mainstream medical research), check out Henci Goer's _Obstetric Myths versus Research Realities_ or _A Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth_ by Enkins, et al. You can also search Medline at PubMed, but that can be a little confusing as the research is all over the map and it's hard to tell which studies are more accurate without looking at the whole study so you know the methodology involved. Henci Goer provides an annotated bibliography that's an excellent starting point for investigation, and the other book is a summary of recommendations from one of the leading groups devoted to evidence-based medicine (the Cochrane Group). Best wishes, Ericka |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
3 hour glucose test question (long)
cfd-z wrote:
My wife does not have diabetes before and this is our first baby. So we don't have any idea this could happen. Basically, what you said is we don't need to worry too much besides there is not much can be done to this problem, right? Well, you'll get different answers from different people on that. Some doctors are adamant that GD is a significant problem and requires treatment and that treatment is effective. However, I don't think the research adequately supports that contention, nor do some other people and organizations I have a lot of respect for. On the other hand, if you want to find people or organizations who are quick to aggressively treat GD, you can find those people too. It would be nice if we had really definitive research, but because so many jumped on the test & treat bandwagon in the US, it's largely become the standard of care in the US, making it nearly impossible to do the kind of controlled studies with random assignment that you need to get good results (because most people won't assign women to no testing or no treatment, even without good evidence supporting the need for testing or treatment-- it's a bit of a catch-22). After looking at the research, *MY* personal choice was not to be tested at all (I'm not diabetic when not pregnant). Others may well choose differently. We will try to adjust our diet and keep an extra eys on it. In many ways, the diet isn't a particularly bad thing. In many ways, it's the sort of thing you ought to be eating regardless. Your wife should make sure she's getting enough calories, as some find the diet restrictive enough that they don't get as many calories and it sounds like your wife is already not gaining very much (though that's not a problem either--focus on eating a good, healthy diet, not on achieving a particular weight gain goal). What may be trickier is if she's testing her blood sugars regularly and the values don't fall in line with what the doctors want to see. That may lead them to try to treat more aggressively or suggest things like early induction or c-section. If they're monitoring blood sugars for the rest of pregnancy, you may want to read up a bit and decide what you are and are not willing to do if you get pressured in these directions. As to those possible Doctor's advices, we will think about. As a matter of fact, those blood tests, like AFP test and this one, are supposed to help people in a better condition, but more likely they only make us nervous for nothing. What ever the baby is, we will take it. And that's certainly something important to keep in mind when deciding about testing. You don't want to test just for the sake of testing. Ideally, the results should make some sort of real difference for you. If it wouldn't make a difference in your decision making, it may well be the best idea for you to refuse a particular test. I think they're all very personal decisions, depending on one's particular situation, temperment, and philosophy. Best wishes, Ericka |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Another child killed in kincare | Kane | General | 39 | February 12th 04 06:55 PM |
Kids should work... | bobb | General | 108 | December 15th 03 03:23 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
And again he strikes........ Doan strikes ...... again! was Kids should work... | Kane | General | 2 | December 6th 03 03:28 AM |