gestational diabetes question
wuzzy
appropriate here...
how long after birth can you wait to determine gestational diabetes?
i realize it is late after birth, but can it still show on blood tests
one week after conception?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Victoria
Can you reword the question? GD is not discovered after giving birth. The
tests are given while you are pregnant. The tests would not show one week
after conception. Your doctor will be able to tell you how he does things
regarding this. You can check out
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7213/798, from which I get this:
"The first, mostly used in North America, is a two step scheme: a screening
test consisting of a one hour 50 g glucose challenge test at 24-28 weeks of
pregnancy followed, if positive, by a diagnostic three hour 100 g or two
hour 75 g oral glucose tolerance test. 1 3 Recent guidelines do not
recommend the screening test in women under 25 years, with normal weight,
with no personal or family history of diabetes, with no history of poor
obstetric outcomes, and who do not belong to an ethnic group predisposed to
diabetes. 1 3 The second strategy, a one step procedure using a two hour 75
g tolerance test as proposed by the World Health Organisation,9 is mostly
used in Europe.1"
I took this off my website, where the pregnancy/ttc page has this.
Victoria
http://www.angelfire.com/va2/womenshealthurls
wuzzy <wu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:SMO$001114...@sintercom.org...
wuzzy
Doing further research I found a source that said that the test for
gestational diabetes can only be done a few days after conception..
This is because after 2 or 3 days, the hormones that caused the diabetes
would have dropped. So one week would be much too late to determine if
an infant was born heavy because of maternal diabetes (as opposed to
high interuterine capacity or maternal weight or something else)
Also, I'm now trying to find out what you can do if the pregnancy has
already occured - is it still possible to diagnose an infant of diabetic
mother and distinguish this from high interuterine capacity?
I've heard that the more babies a mother has, the more uterine capacity
and therefore the heavier the birthweights.
-one thing to distinguish the infants of diabetic mothers is that
they are born with hairy pinnae (little fuzz on the ears).. but i don't
think this occurs often enough to be diagnostic..(not sure) and what
happens if this isn't present, i'm sure the diagnostic cannot be voided.
anyway, info on this is hard to find since most studies focus on low
birth weight rather than high...
-wuzzy
Victoria
> Hey Victoria, thanks for the information!
Glad to help. :)
> Also, I'm now trying to find out what you can do if the pregnancy has
> already occured - is it still possible to diagnose an infant of diabetic
> mother and distinguish this from high interuterine capacity?
To be honest, I wouldn't think so. Depending on how old the child is, you
can test his/her insulin and glucose and the ratios of it to see whether or
not the child currently has Type I or II diabetes. I guess it leads me to
another few questions: I'm unsure whether you've had a baby or haven't had
one yet, so I'm leading up to this: if you are pregnant now, make sure you
get tested for GD. If you've already had one baby, what was the weight of
that baby? If the baby was (this is from memory, don't quote me) 4300 or
4500 gms? or more, then there is a higher probability that the mom/baby had
a sugar problem, but I've never heard it attributed to the more babies you
have. For RH factor, yes, but not GD. If you have GD in one pregnancy, you
are more likely to get it in another pregnancy.
> I've heard that the more babies a mother has, the more uterine capacity
> and therefore the heavier the birthweights.
> -one thing to distinguish the infants of diabetic mothers is that
> they are born with hairy pinnae (little fuzz on the ears).. but i don't
> think this occurs often enough to be diagnostic..(not sure) and what
> happens if this isn't present, i'm sure the diagnostic cannot be voided.
Where did that come from? I've never seen it in any of the medical journal
related stuff I've looked at, and I'd like to investigate this.
> anyway, info on this is hard to find since most studies focus on low
> birth weight rather than high...
Really? I've been focusing more on the higher weight babies, since I've
known more 8 pd + babies than underweights (except for multiples).
Congratulations and pat yourself on the back for doing the research. I
applaud you - most people don't want to be bothered, and it shows good
credit on your part for doing so.
Victoria
wuzzy
But no, the questions i asked weren't of a personal nature, I'm just a
curious question asker hehe... i'm majoring in human biology so i spend
alot of time reading journal abstracts etc...
anyway, you asked about references to "hairy pinnae" in the infant of
the diabetic mother:
this was originally published in
HyperTrichosis pinnae in Babies of diabetic Mothers. Peidatrics
65:745-746,1981
where Massoud Rafaat MD is quoted: "Therefore, we add this physical
characteristic to the above well known features"(earliest source as far
as i know)
but there's many many more references, including
2)Intra-uterine growth in infants of diabetic mothers. S. Afr. Med J.
58:441-443
3)Hairy Pinna: A pathogenic sign in infants of diabetic mothers. Indian
Pediatrics 24:87-89, 1987
i found the full text to these at my library Couldn't find on these or
Medline any indication on whether this cutaneous sign is lost during
adolescence or even days after birth...the explanation of the sign is
also not given... just says it is a statistically significant sign
wuzzy
i just did a quick look up and these articles are much earlier:
we have a journal stacks in our library that preserves most of these..
1)Effect of Moderate dosage of chlorpropamide in pregnancy on fetal
outcome. Arch. Dis Child 49:283,1974
2)Characteristic physionomy, resembling that encountered in cushing's
syndrome, observed in newborn infants of diabetic mothers. Acta Paediat.
Scand 100:185,1954
3)Hirsutism in the children of diabetic mothers. Ann Paediat Fenn
6:232,1960
also there's a note in Pediatrics vol 70 No.2 August 1982
that says that general fuzz is not diagnostic of diabetic infant unless
it is specific to the ears - because this can be due to an inherited
trait. article also mentions that this feature is also present even in
infants of well controlled diabetic mothers.
Victoria
one is 1987. I am curious as to why there isn't anything else more with it.
I would figure that this would be a prime sign, since it is visible, and you
don't have to draw any blood, fool with the placenta, etc.
I'd be concerned if a doctor only focused on this though, versus taking a
blood test. Maybe they do just blood tests to confirm it?
Victoria
"wuzzy" <wu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:SMO$00112...@sintercom.org...
> HyperTrichosis pinnae in Babies of diabetic Mothers. Peidatrics
65:745-746,1981
wuzzy
of these studies after reading a recent obgyn text, also saw it in a
dermatology text - no recent studies were cited in either case,
suggesting there arent any!) and those studies were somewhat anecdotal
(ie a few doctors who noticed this of their patients) - not even a
population based study etc... just anecdotal..
an ob-gyn/pediat with much experience should easily have been able to
agree/deny this..