Obesity surgery · 2016
Glucose Profiles in Pregnant Women After a Gastric Bypass : Findings from Continuous Glucose Monitoring.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bonis Camille, Lorenzini Françoise, Bertrand Monelle, Parant Olivier, Gourdy Pierre, Vaurs Charlotte, Cazals Laurent, Ritz Patrick, Hanaire Hélène
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) usually requires an oral glucose tolerance test, but this procedure seems inappropriate after gastric bypass surgery (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB)) due to specific altered glycemic responses. We aimed here at describing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) profile of pregnant women after RYGB.
METHODS: CGM was performed in 35 consecutive pregnant women after RYGB at 26.2 ± 5 weeks of gestation.
RESULTS: After RYGB, pregnant women display high postprandial interstitial glucose (IG) peaks and low IG before and 2 h after meals. The postprandial IG peak is reached early, within 54 ± 9 min. The maximum IG values reach 205 mg/dl, and the percentage of time above 140 mg/dl (6.6 ± 7 %) is similar to what is described in GDM women.
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to describe CGM profile in pregnant women after RYGB. CGM features are similar to those of non-pregnant post-RYGB patients, characterized by wide and rapid changes in postprandial IG, and high exposure to hyperglycemia. The exposure to hyperglycemia is similar to what is reported in GDM although the time to postprandial peak is shorter. CGM could be an additional useful approach to screen for glucose intolerance during pregnancy after RYGB.
METHODS: CGM was performed in 35 consecutive pregnant women after RYGB at 26.2 ± 5 weeks of gestation.
RESULTS: After RYGB, pregnant women display high postprandial interstitial glucose (IG) peaks and low IG before and 2 h after meals. The postprandial IG peak is reached early, within 54 ± 9 min. The maximum IG values reach 205 mg/dl, and the percentage of time above 140 mg/dl (6.6 ± 7 %) is similar to what is described in GDM women.
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to describe CGM profile in pregnant women after RYGB. CGM features are similar to those of non-pregnant post-RYGB patients, characterized by wide and rapid changes in postprandial IG, and high exposure to hyperglycemia. The exposure to hyperglycemia is similar to what is reported in GDM although the time to postprandial peak is shorter. CGM could be an additional useful approach to screen for glucose intolerance during pregnancy after RYGB.