• Daphne N Voormolen, J Hans DeVries, Rieneke M E Sanson, Martijn P Heringa, Harold W de Valk, Marjolein Kok, Aren J van Loon, Klaas Hoogenberg, Dick J Bekedam, Teri C B Brouwer, Martina Porath, Ronald J Erdtsieck, Bas NijBijvank, Huib Kip, Olivier W H van der Heijden, Lammy D Elving, Brenda B Hermsen, B J Potter van Loon, Rijnders Robert J P RJP Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, The Netherlands., Henry J Jansen, Josje Langenveld, Akerboom Bettina M C BMC Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands., Rosalie M Kiewiet, Christiana A Naaktgeboren, Mol Ben W J BWJ The Robinson Research Institute, School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. , Arie Franx, and Inge M Evers.
• Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Women and Baby, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
• Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018 Aug 1; 20 (8): 1894-1902.

AimDiabetes is associated with a high risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Optimal glycaemic control is fundamental and is traditionally monitored with self-measured glucose profiles and periodic HbA1c measurements. We investigated the effectiveness of additional use of retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in diabetic pregnancies.Material And MethodsWe performed a nationwide multicentre, open label, randomized, controlled trial to study pregnant women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who were undergoing insulin therapy at gestational age < 16 weeks, or women who were undergoing insulin treatment for gestational diabetes at gestational age < 30 weeks. Women were randomly allocated (1:1) to intermittent use of retrospective CGM or to standard treatment. Glycaemic control was assessed by CGM for 5-7 days every 6 weeks in the CGM group, while self-monitoring of blood glucose and HbA1c measurements were applied in both groups. Primary outcome was macrosomia, defined as birth weight above the 90th percentile. Secondary outcomes were glycaemic control and maternal and neonatal complications.ResultsBetween July 2011 and September 2015, we randomized 300 pregnant women with type 1 (n = 109), type 2 (n = 82) or with gestational (n = 109) diabetes to either CGM (n = 147) or standard treatment (n = 153). The incidence of macrosomia was 31.0% in the CGM group and 28.4% in the standard treatment group (relative risk [RR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.83-1.37). HbA1c levels were similar between treatment groups.ConclusionsIn diabetic pregnancy, use of intermittent retrospective CGM did not reduce the risk of macrosomia. CGM provides detailed information concerning glycaemic fluctuations but, as a treatment strategy, does not translate into improved pregnancy outcome.© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

47 keywords...

hide…