Objectives and Background: Gestational diabetes (GDM) is a common pregnancy complication, defined as a glucose intolerance diagnosis during pregnancy. GDM is strongly associated with adverse fetal and maternal outcomes. In Germany, to screen and diagnose GDM we use a 1-hour 50g oGCT (oral glucose challenge test) followed by a 2-hour 75g oGTT if the first was pathological. This analysis examines the correlation of 75g oGTT glucose levels and fetomaternal outcome. Methods: Data of 1664 patients from a gestational diabetes consultation clinic at the Charité University hospital in Berlin, Germany, were analyzed retrospectively from 2015 until 2022. The 75g oGTT blood glucose levels were categorized into isolated fasting hyperglycemia (GDM-IFH), isolated post-load hyperglycemia (GDM-IPH) and combined hyperglycemia (GDM-CH), using the levels of the fasting, 1-hour and 2-hour values after glucose application. These subtypes were compared regarding baseline characteristics as well as fetal and maternal outcome. Results: GDM-IFH and GDM-CH women displayed higher preconceptional BMI and required insulin therapy more frequently (p<0,001). The GDM-IFH group was at higher risk of having a primary cesarean section (p=0,047), while GDM-IPH women were significantly more likely to have an emergent cesarean section (p=0,013). The offspring of GDM-IFH and GDM-CH women were born with a significantly higher mean birthweight (p<0,001) and birth weight percentiles (p<0,001) and were at increased risk of being large for gestational age (LGA) (p=0,004). Women from the GDM-IPH group delivered significantly more neonates who were small for gestational age (p=0,027) or with low fetal weight <30th percentile (p=0,003). Conclusion: This analysis shows a strong association between glucose response pattern in the 75g oGTT and adverse perinatal fetomaternal outcome. The differences among the subgroups, specifically concerning insulin therapy, mode of delivery and fetal growth, suggest an individualized approach in prenatal care after a GDM diagnosis.

Objective: This study aims to investigate the possible effects of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) on fetal heart structure and the relationship of this effect with maternal blood sugar control. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 19 women with GDM at 24-36 weeks of gestation (case group) and 21 healthy pregnant women at the same weeks of gestation (control group) were examined. Fetal heart structure was evaluated by ultrasonography, interventricular septum (IVS) thickness, right and left ventricular sphericity indices, global sphericity index (GSI) and cardio-thoracic ratio were measured. In addition, mothers' HbA1c values (an indicator of blood sugar control) were recorded. Result: An increase in IVS thickness was observed in the fetuses of mothers with GDM. A more rounded trend was observed in the right ventricular structure, but this did not create a significant difference. No significant relationship was found between maternal blood sugar control and fetal heart structure. Conclusion: This study examined the effects of gestational diabetes on fetal cardiac morphology and the relationship of this effect with maternal glycemic control. Babies of mothers with GDM had a significantly thicker interventricular septum. A more rounded trend was detected in the right ventricular structure. However, this change was not found to be statistically significant. In addition, no significant correlation was found between maternal glycemic control and fetal cardiac morphology.

Aim: To evaluate the impact of applying alternative diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) during the COVID-19 pandemic on GDM prevalence, obstetrical and perinatal outcomes, and costs, as compared to the standard diagnostic method. Methods: A cohort of pregnant individuals undergoing GMD screening with the alternative GDM method, which uses plasma glucose (fasting or non-fasting) and HbA1c, was compared with a cohort of pregnant individuals undergoing the standard GDM screening method. Both cohorts were obtained from 6 hospitals across Catalonia, Spain, from April 2020 to April 2022. The primary outcome was large for gestational age rate at birth. Secondary outcomes were composite adverse outcomes including pregnancy complications, delivery complications, and neonatal complications. Cost differences between screening methods were also evaluated. A similar analysis was performed in the subgroup diagnosed with GDM. Results: Data were collected from 1,543 pregnant individuals in the standard screening group and 2,197 in the alternative screening group. The standard screening group had a higher GDM diagnostic rate than the alternative screening group (10.8% vs 6.9%, respectively; p<0.0001). The primary outcome (large for gestational age rate) was similar between groups: 200/1543 (13.0%) vs 303/2197 (13.8%). The adjusted OR for this outcome was 1.74 (95% CI: 0.74-4.10). An adjusted analysis showed no differences between groups in composite adverse outcomes for pregnancy complications (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.91-1.36), delivery complications (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.75-1.19), and neonatal complications (OR: 1.28; 95% CI: 0.94-1.75). Among individuals diagnosed with GDM, the large for gestational age rate was similar between groups: 13/166 (7.8 %) vs 15/151 (9.9 %). The OR adjusted for this outcome was 1.24 (95% CI: 0.51-3.09). An adjusted analysis showed no differences in composite adverse outcomes for pregnancy complications (OR: 1.57; 95% CI: 0.84-2.98), delivery complications (OR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.63-2.35), and neonatal complications (OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 0.61-3.04). The mean cost (which included expenses for consumables, equipment and personnel) of the alternative screening method was 46.0 euros (22.3 SD), as compared to 85.6 euros (67.5 SD) for the standard screening method. Conclusions: In this Spanish population during the COVID-19 pandemic, GDM prevalence was lower in the alternative screening group than in the standard screening group. After adjusting for GDM risk factors, outcomes related to obstetrics, delivery, and neonatal complications were comparable between both groups. Finally, the alternative screening method was cheaper than the standard screening method.