Predictors for pharmacological therapy and perinatal outcomes with metformin treatment in women with gestational diabetes.

Background: The prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has been increasing in Australia and worldwide. The study aims were to examine, in comparison with dietary intervention, perinatal outcomes for women with gestational diabetes who were attending a single hospital clinic and to identify predictors for their pharmacological GDM treatment. Methods: A prospective, observational study of women with GDM, treated with "Diet, N= 50", "Metformin, N = 35", "Metformin and Insulin, N = 46" or "Insulin, N = 20". Findings: The mean BMI for the whole cohort was 25.8 ± 4.7 kg/m2. The Metformin group, compared to the Diet group, had OR=3.1 (95% CI:1.13 to 8.25) for caesarean section birth (LSCS) compared to normal vaginal birth mode with no longer such a significant association after controlling for the number of their elective LSCS. The insulin treated group had the highest number of small for gestational age neonates (20%, p<0.05) with neonatal hypoglycaemia (25%, p< 0.05). Fasting glucose value on oral GTT (glucose tolerance test) was the strongest predictor for a pharmacological intervention requirement with OR = 2.77 (95CI%: 1.16 to 6.61), followed by timing of OGTT with OR=0.90 (95% CI: 0.83 to 0.97) and previous pregnancy loss with OR=0.28 (95% CI:0.10 to 0.74). Interpretation: These data suggest that metformin may be a safe alternative treatment to insulin treatment in GDM. Raised fasting glucose on oral GTT was the strongest indicator that GDM women with BMI < 35 kg/m2 may require pharmacological therapy. Further studies are needed to identify the most effective and safe management of gestational diabetes within the public hospital setting. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ANZCTR Trial Id: ACTRN12620000397910.

Blunt vs. sharp uterine expansion at lower segment cesarean section delivery: a systematic review with metaanalysis.

OBJECTIVE: Blunt vs sharp expansion of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery has been investigated as a technique primarily to reduce intraoperative blood loss. The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effects of either intervention on maternal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review with metaanalyses that used the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was performed. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1948-Apr 2012), EMBASE (1947-Apr 2012), and the reference lists/citation history of articles were searched. Only randomized controlled trials were included. RESULTS: Four trials (1731 patients) were evaluated. Data from one recently completed trial (535 patients) were not yet available. Metaanalyses revealed a trend towards reduced maternal blood loss with blunt expansion of the uterine incision that was statistically significant when measured by surgeon's estimation of volume lost, but not by comparison of pre- and postoperative hematocrit and hemoglobin levels or a requirement for blood transfusion. There was a trend towards fewer unintended extensions in the blunt group and no difference in the incidence of endometritis. CONCLUSION: Blunt dissection of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery appears to be superior to sharp dissection in minimizing maternal blood loss. However, this conclusion could change when data from a new unpublished large trial are available.