Postpartum-Specific Vital Sign Reference Ranges.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate normal ranges for postpartum maternal vital signs. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective longitudinal cohort study in the United Kingdom. We recruited women before 20 weeks of gestation without significant comorbidities and with accurately dated singleton pregnancies. Women recorded their own blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation and temperature daily for 2 weeks postpartum. Trained midwives measured participants' vital signs including respiratory rate around postpartum days 1, 7, and 14. RESULTS: From August 2012 to September 2016, we screened 4,279 pregnant women; 1,054 met eligibility criteria and chose to take part. Postpartum vital sign data were available for 909 women (86.2%). Median, or 50th centile (3rd-97th centile), systolic and diastolic blood pressures increased from the day of birth: 116 mm Hg (88-147) and 74 mm Hg (59-93) to a maximum median of 121 mm Hg (102-143) and 79 mm Hg (63-94) on days 5 and 6 postpartum, respectively, an increase of 5 mm Hg (95% CI 3-7) and 5 mm Hg (95% CI 4-6), respectively. Median (3rd-97th centile) systolic and diastolic blood pressure returned to 116 mm Hg (98-137) and 75 mm Hg (61-91) by day 14 postpartum. The median (3rd-97th centile) heart rate was highest on the day of birth, 84 beats per minute (bpm) (59-110) decreasing to a minimum of 75 bpm (55-101) 14 days postpartum. Oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, and temperature did not change in the 2 weeks postbirth. Median (3rd-97th centile) day-of-birth oxygen saturation was 96% (93-98). Median (3rd-97th centile) day-of-birth respiratory rate was 15 breaths per minute (10-22). Median (3rd-97th centile) day-of-birth temperature was 36.7°C (35.6-37.6). CONCLUSION: We present widely relevant, postpartum, day-specific reference ranges which may facilitate early detection of abnormal blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation and temperature during the puerperium. Our findings could inform construction of an evidence-based modified obstetric early warning system to better identify unwell postpartum women. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, 10838017.

Gestation-Specific Vital Sign Reference Ranges in Pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate normal ranges for maternal vital signs throughout pregnancy, which have not been well defined in a large contemporary population. METHODS: We conducted a three-center, prospective, longitudinal cohort study in the United Kingdom from August 2012 to September 2017. We recruited women at less than 20 weeks of gestation without significant comorbidities with accurately dated singleton pregnancies. We measured participants' blood pressure (BP), heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation and temperature following standardized operating procedures at 4-6 weekly intervals throughout pregnancy. RESULTS: We screened 4,279 pregnant women, 1,041 met eligibility criteria and chose to take part. Systolic and diastolic BP decreased slightly from 12 weeks of gestation: median or 50th centile (3rd-97th centile) 114 (95-138); 70 (56-87) mm Hg to reach minimums of 113 (95-136); 69 (55-86) mm Hg at 18.6 and 19.2 weeks of gestation, respectively, a change (95% CI) of -1.0 (-2 to 0); -1 (-2 to -1) mm Hg. Systolic and diastolic BP then rose to a maximum median (3rd-97th centile) of 121 (102-144); 78 (62-95) mm Hg at 40 weeks of gestation, a difference (95% CI) of 7 (6-9) and9 (8-10) mm Hg, respectively. The median (3rd-97th centile) heart rate was lowest at 12 weeks of gestation: 82 (63-105) beats per minute (bpm), rising progressively to a maximum of 91 (68-115) bpm at 34.1 weeks. SpO2 decreased from 12 weeks of gestation: median (3-97 centile) 98% (94-99%) to 97% (93-99%) at 40 weeks. The median (3-97 centile) respiratory rate at 12 weeks of gestation was 15 (9-22), which did not change with gestation. The median (3-97 centile) temperature at 12 weeks of gestation was 36.7 (35.6-37.5)°C, decreasing to a minimum of 36.5 (35.3-37.3)°C at 33.4 weeks. CONCLUSION: We present widely relevant, gestation-specific reference ranges for detecting abnormal BP, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation and temperature during pregnancy. Our findings refute the existence of a clinically significant BP drop from 12 weeks of gestation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN10838017.

Trends of blood pressure and heart rate in normal pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current reference ranges for blood pressure and heart rate throughout pregnancy have a poor evidence base. METHODS: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We included studies measuring blood pressure or heart rate from healthy pregnant women within defined gestational periods of 16 weeks or less. We analysed systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and heart rate by gestational age. We assessed effects of measurement year and method. RESULTS: We included 39 studies undertaken in 1967-2017, containing 124,349 systolic measurements from 36,239 women, 124,291 diastolic measurements from 36,181 women and 10,948 heart rate measurements from 8317 women. Mean (95% CI) systolic blood pressure was lowest at 10 weeks gestation, 110.4 (108.5, 112.3) mmHg, rising to 116.0 (113.6, 118.4) mmHg at 40 weeks, mean (95% CI) change 5.6 (4.0, 7.2) mmHg. Mean (95% CI) diastolic blood pressure was lowest at 21 weeks gestation, 65.9 (64.2, 67.7) mmHg; rising to 72.8 (71.0, 74.6) mmHg at 40 weeks, mean (95% CI) change 6.9 (6.2, 7.5) mmHg. Mean (95% CI) heart rate rose from 79.3 (75.5, 83.1) beats/min at 10 weeks to 86.9 (82.2, 91.6) beats/min at 40 weeks gestation, mean (95% CI) change 7.6 (1.8, 13.4) beats/min. Studies using manual measurement reported higher diastolic blood pressures than studies using automated measurement, mean (95 CI) difference 4.9 (0.8, 8.9) mmHg. Diastolic blood pressure increased by 0.26 (95% CI 0.10-0.43) mmHg/year. Including only higher-quality studies had little effect on findings, with heterogeneity remaining high (I2 statistic > 50%). CONCLUSIONS: Significant gestational blood pressure and heart rate changes occur that should be taken into account when assessing pregnant women. Commonly taught substantial decreases in blood pressure mid-pregnancy were not seen and heart rate increases were lower than previously thought. Manual and automated blood pressure measurement cannot be used interchangeably. Increases in diastolic blood pressure over the last half-century and differences between published studies show contemporary data are required to define current normal ranges. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014009673.

Clinical Implications of the NICE 2015 Criteria for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: In response to concerns that the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria labeled too many women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) without evidence of clinical or economic benefit, NICE recommended a change in diagnostic criteria in 2015. AIM: To compare diabetes associated maternal and neonatal complications in pregnancies complicated by GDM diagnosed using IADPSG criteria only, to those with GDM diagnosed using both IADPSG and NICE 2015 criteria. GDM screening was risk factor based. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a trial of women with GDM diagnosed by the IADPSG criteria (fasting blood glucose (BG) ≥ 5.1 mmol/L, 1 h ≥ 10.0 mmol/L and 2 h ≥ 8.5 mmol/L). Outcomes were compared for two groups: NICE + IADPSG defined as those with GDM diagnosed by both the NICE 2015 and IADPSG criteria (fasting BG ≥ 5.6 mmol/L, 2 h ≥ 8.5 mmol/L); and IADPSG-ONLY (fasting BG 5.1 mmol/L to 5.5 mmol/L, and/or 1-hour ≥10.0 mmol/L, and 2 h ≥ 8.5 mmol/L). We were not able to obtain data for women with a 2-h value between BG 7.8⁻8.4 mmol/L (i.e., NICE-ONLY; NICE 2015 positive and IADPSG negative). All women were treated for GDM using targets of fasting BG < 5.3 mmol/L and 1-h post prandial BG < 7.8 mmol/L respectively. RESULTS: Of 159 women, 65 (40.9%) were NICE + IADPSG and 94 (59.1%) IADPSG-ONLY. Hypoglycaemic medication use was similar in both groups: 52.3% NICE + IADPSG, 46.8% IADPSG-ONLY, OR 1.0 (0.5⁻1.9). The IADPSG-ONLY group delivered later than the NICE + IADPSG group; 39.0 weeks (sd 1.4) compared to 38.2 weeks (sd 2.5), p value 0.02. Fewer caesarean sections occurred in IADPSG-ONLY group 30.9% vs. 52.3%, OR 0.4 (0.2⁻0.9). Birthweight, large for gestational age, and other neonatal complications were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Gestational diabetes-associated perinatal complications were similar in both groups. The IADPSG criteria detect women with evidence of ongoing hyperglycaemia who may benefit from treatment during pregnancy.

Comparing the Efficacy of a Mobile Phone-Based Blood Glucose Management System With Standard Clinic Care in Women With Gestational Diabetes: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of hyperglycemia in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with improved maternal and neonatal outcomes and requires intensive clinical input. This is currently achieved by hospital clinic attendance every 2 to 4 weeks with limited opportunity for intervention between these visits. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether the use of a mobile phone-based real-time blood glucose management system to manage women with GDM remotely was as effective in controlling blood glucose as standard care through clinic attendance. METHODS: Women with an abnormal oral glucose tolerance test before 34 completed weeks of gestation were individually randomized to a mobile phone-based blood glucose management solution (GDm-health, the intervention) or routine clinic care. The primary outcome was change in mean blood glucose in each group from recruitment to delivery, calculated with adjustments made for number of blood glucose measurements, proportion of preprandial and postprandial readings, baseline characteristics, and length of time in the study. RESULTS: A total of 203 women were randomized. Blood glucose data were available for 98 intervention and 85 control women. There was no significant difference in rate of change of blood glucose (-0.16 mmol/L in the intervention and -0.14 mmol/L in the control group per 28 days, P=.78). Women using the intervention had higher satisfaction with care (P=.049). Preterm birth was less common in the intervention group (5/101, 5.0% vs 13/102, 12.7%; OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.12-1.01). There were fewer cesarean deliveries compared with vaginal deliveries in the intervention group (27/101, 26.7% vs 47/102, 46.1%, P=.005). Other glycemic, maternal, and neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups. The median time from recruitment to delivery was similar (intervention: 54 days; control: 49 days; P=.23). However, there were significantly more blood glucose readings in the intervention group (mean 3.80 [SD 1.80] and mean 2.63 [SD 1.71] readings per day in the intervention and control groups, respectively; P<.001). There was no significant difference in direct health care costs between the two groups, with a mean cost difference of the intervention group compared to control of -£1044 (95% CI -£2186 to £99). There were no unexpected adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Remote blood glucocse monitoring in women with GDM is safe. We demonstrated superior data capture using GDm-health. Although glycemic control and maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar, women preferred this model of care. Further studies are required to explore whether digital health solutions can promote desired self-management lifestyle behaviors and dietetic adherence, and influence maternal and neonatal outcomes. Digital blood glucose monitoring may provide a scalable, practical method to address the growing burden of GDM around the world. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01916694; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01916694 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6y3lh2BOQ).

Pregnancy physiology pattern prediction study (4P study): protocol of an observational cohort study collecting vital sign information to inform the development of an accurate centile-based obstetric early warning score.

INTRODUCTION: Successive confidential enquiries into maternal deaths in the UK have identified an urgent need to develop a national early warning score (EWS) specifically for pregnant or recently pregnant women to aid more timely recognition, referral and treatment of women who are developing life-threatening complications in pregnancy or the puerperium. Although many local EWS are in use in obstetrics, most have been developed heuristically. No current obstetric EWS has defined the thresholds at which an alert should be triggered using evidence-based normal ranges, nor do they reflect the changing physiology that occurs with gestation during pregnancy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An observational cohort study involving 1000 participants across three UK sites in Oxford, London and Newcastle. Pregnant women will be recruited at approximately 14 weeks' gestation and have their vital signs (heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation and temperature) measured at 4 to 6-week intervals during pregnancy. Vital signs recorded during labour and delivery will be extracted from hospital records. After delivery, participants will measure and record their own vital signs daily for 2 weeks. During the antenatal and postnatal periods, vital signs will be recorded on an Android tablet computer through a custom software application and transferred via mobile internet connection to a secure database. The data collected will be used to define reference ranges of vital signs across normal pregnancy, labour and the immediate postnatal period. This will inform the design of an evidence-based obstetric EWS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the NRES committee South East Coast-Brighton and Sussex (14/LO/1312) and is registered with the ISRCTN (10838017). All participants will provide written informed consent and can withdraw from the study at any point. All data collected will be managed anonymously. The findings will be disseminated in international peer-reviewed journals and through research conferences.

Telemedicine Technologies for Diabetes in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes in pregnancy is a global problem. Technological innovations present exciting opportunities for novel approaches to improve clinical care delivery for gestational and other forms of diabetes in pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: To perform an updated and comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to determine whether telemedicine solutions offer any advantages compared with the standard care for women with diabetes in pregnancy. METHODS: The review was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) in women with diabetes in pregnancy that compared telemedicine blood glucose monitoring with the standard care were identified. Searches were performed in SCOPUS and PubMed, limited to English language publications between January 2000 and January 2016. Trials that met the eligibility criteria were scored for risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias Tool. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software version 5.3 (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Cochrane Collaboration). RESULTS: A total of 7 trials were identified. Meta-analysis demonstrated a modest but statistically significant improvement in HbA1c associated with the use of a telemedicine technology. The mean HbA1c of women using telemedicine was 5.33% (SD 0.70) compared with 5.45% (SD 0.58) in the standard care group, representing a mean difference of -0.12% (95% CI -0.23% to -0.02%). When this comparison was limited to women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) only, the mean HbA1c of women using telemedicine was 5.22% (SD 0.70) compared with 5.37% (SD 0.61) in the standard care group, mean difference -0.14% (95% CI -0.25% to -0.04%). There were no differences in other maternal and neonatal outcomes reported. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence that telemedicine technology is superior to standard care for women with diabetes in pregnancy; however, there was no evidence of harm. No trials were identified that assessed patient satisfaction or cost of care delivery, and it may be in these areas where these technologies may be found most valuable.

Trial protocol to compare the efficacy of a smartphone-based blood glucose management system with standard clinic care in the gestational diabetic population.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is rising in the UK. Good glycaemic control improves maternal and neonatal outcomes. Frequent clinical review of patients with GDM by healthcare professionals is required owing to the rapidly changing physiology of pregnancy and its unpredictable course. Novel technologies that allow home blood glucose (BG) monitoring with results transmitted in real time to a healthcare professional have the potential to deliver good-quality healthcare to women more conveniently and at a lower cost to the patient and the healthcare provider compared to the conventional face-to-face or telephone-based consultation. We have developed an integrated GDm-health management system and aim to test the impact of using this system on maternal glycaemic control, costs, patient satisfaction and maternal and neonatal outcomes compared to standard clinic care in a single large publicly funded (National Health Service (NHS)) maternity unit. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Women with confirmed gestational diabetes in a current pregnancy are individually randomised to either the GDm-health system and half the normal clinic visits or normal clinic care. Primary outcome is mean BG in each group from recruitment to delivery calculated, with adjustments made for number of BG measurements, proportion of preprandial and postprandial readings and length of time in study, and compared between the groups. The secondary objective will be to compare the two groups for compliance to the allocated BG monitoring regime, maternal and neonatal outcomes, glycaemic control using glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and other BG metrics, and patient attitudes to care assessed using a questionnaire and resource use. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Thresholds for treatment, dietary advice and clinical management are the same in both groups. The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated electronically and in print. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01916694; Pre-results.

Trends of vital signs with gestational age in normal pregnancies: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Vital signs (blood pressure, heart rate, temperature, oxygen saturation and respiratory rate) are thought to undergo changes during and immediately after pregnancy. However, these physiological changes are not taken into account in the normal ranges, which themselves are not evidence-based, used in routine and acute care monitoring. We aim to synthesise the existing evidence base for changes in vital signs during pregnancy, in order to derive new centile charts for each stage of pregnancy and the immediate postpartum period. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases from their inception to April 2015 for vital signs from pregnant, intrapartum or postpartum women who were recruited as 'healthy'. Assessment of bias will be conducted using a predefined set of independently agreed methodological criteria, which assigns an overall quality score to each study. We will record whether the vital sign measurements were made with measurement devices validated for use in pregnancy and in a standard posture. We will use regression methods to construct centile charts of vital signs across pregnancy and the immediate postpartum period for each vital sign. We will compare existing reference ranges to those derived from our centile charts. DISSEMINATION: The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated electronically and in print. PROSPERO REFERENCE: CRD42014009673.

Acceptability and user satisfaction of a smartphone-based, interactive blood glucose management system in women with gestational diabetes mellitus.

The increase in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is challenging maternity services. We have developed an interactive, smartphone-based, remote blood glucose (BG) monitoring system, GDm-health. The objective was to determine women's satisfaction with using the GDm-health system and their attitudes toward their diabetes care. In a service development program involving 52 pregnant women (September 2012 to June 2013), BG was monitored using GDm-health from diagnosis until delivery. Following birth, women completed a structured questionnaire assessing (1) general satisfaction, (2) equipment issues, and (3) relationship with the diabetes care team. Responses were scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Reliability and validity of the questionnaire were assessed using statistical methods. Of 52 women, 49 completed the questionnaire; 32 had glucose tolerance test confirmed GDM (gestation at recruitment 29 ± 4 weeks (mean ± SD), and 17 women previous GDM recommended for BG monitoring (18 ± 6 weeks). In all, 45 of 49 women agreed their care was satisfactory and the best for them, 47 of 49 and 43 of 49 agreed the equipment was convenient and reliable respectively, 42 of 49 agreed GDm-health fitted into their lifestyle, and 46 of 49 agreed they had a good relationship with their care team. Written comments supported these findings, with very positive reactions from the majority of women. Cronbach's alpha was .89 with factor analysis corresponding with question thematic trends. This pilot demonstrates that GDm-health is acceptable and convenient for a large proportion of women. Effects on clinical and economic outcomes are currently under investigation in a randomized trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT01916694).

Development of a real-time smartphone solution for the management of women with or at high risk of gestational diabetes.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is defined as new onset or recognition of glucose intolerance in pregnancy. Evidence supports tight blood glucose regulation to prevent adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. Finger-prick blood glucose (BG) testing with frequent clinic review remains the most common method of managing diabetes in pregnancy. The prevalence of GDM is rising globally, pressuring resource-limited services. We have developed an intuitive, interactive, reliable, and accurate management system to record BG measurements and deliver management of GDM remotely. Following an initial scoping phase, a prototype software application was developed using an Android smartphone with BG meter linkage via Bluetooth. A custom website was built for clinician review of the data transmitted by the smartphone. After system refinement, further evaluation was undertaken for usability and reliability in a 48-patient service development project. Women used the system for an average of 13.1 weeks. In all, 19 686 BG measures were transmitted, 98.6% of which had a meal tag. A total of 466 text messages were transmitted. A mean of 30 BG readings per woman per week were transmitted, and 85% of women submitted the minimum requirement of 18 readings per week. We have developed a novel, real-time, smartphone-based BG monitoring management system that allows clinician review of real-time patient-annotated BG results. Results indicate high usage and excellent compliance by women. Robust clinical, economic, and satisfaction evaluations are required. To address these requirements, we are currently conducting a randomized controlled pilot trial.