Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine · 2021
Impact of optimizing pre-analytical phase on the diagnosis of gestational diabetes and related outcomes.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Szoke Dominika, Borille Simona, Cardellicchio Manuela, Spadaccini Giovanna, Taricco Emanuela, Vignali Michele, Cetin Irene, Birindelli Sarah, Panteghini Mauro
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Pre-analytical plasma glucose (PG) sampling methodology may significantly affect gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) incidence, but no studies directly examined the impact on perinatal outcomes. We compared the effect on oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) results of using for blood sampling the traditional sodium fluoride (NaF) tubes, batched at controlled temperature, and the more effective citrate-buffered tubes, in terms of GDM diagnosis and related outcomes.
METHODS: We evaluated 578 pregnant women performing OGTT between 24- and 28-weeks' gestation. Paired NaF and citrate blood samples were drawn and analyzed for PG. GDM diagnosis was made by applying the 'one-step' American Diabetes Association strategy. Data on perinatal outcomes were collected in a subset of 330 women who delivered in our hospital network.
RESULTS: Using the standard NaF approach, 69 (11.9%) GDM women were detected. Using citrate PG values, 90 women were additionally identified as GDM, increasing the GDM prevalence to 27.5%. Perinatal outcomes were analyzed according to the different diagnostic allocation (NaF-diagnosed GDM, additional citrate-diagnosed GDM, and no GDM). NaF-diagnosed GDM showed a higher incidence of large for gestational age (LGA) (p=0.034), and of cesarean and preterm delivery (p<0.01) vs. no GDM. The only outcome remaining more frequent in the additional citrate diagnosed GDM when compared with no GDM group was LGA (17.2 vs. 6.8%, p=0.025).
CONCLUSIONS: If a health care system plans to use citrate tubes for GDM diagnosis, considerations about clinical implications are mandatory by balancing higher sensitivity in detecting a poor glycemic control with effects on outcomes to avoid "overdiagnosis".
METHODS: We evaluated 578 pregnant women performing OGTT between 24- and 28-weeks' gestation. Paired NaF and citrate blood samples were drawn and analyzed for PG. GDM diagnosis was made by applying the 'one-step' American Diabetes Association strategy. Data on perinatal outcomes were collected in a subset of 330 women who delivered in our hospital network.
RESULTS: Using the standard NaF approach, 69 (11.9%) GDM women were detected. Using citrate PG values, 90 women were additionally identified as GDM, increasing the GDM prevalence to 27.5%. Perinatal outcomes were analyzed according to the different diagnostic allocation (NaF-diagnosed GDM, additional citrate-diagnosed GDM, and no GDM). NaF-diagnosed GDM showed a higher incidence of large for gestational age (LGA) (p=0.034), and of cesarean and preterm delivery (p<0.01) vs. no GDM. The only outcome remaining more frequent in the additional citrate diagnosed GDM when compared with no GDM group was LGA (17.2 vs. 6.8%, p=0.025).
CONCLUSIONS: If a health care system plans to use citrate tubes for GDM diagnosis, considerations about clinical implications are mandatory by balancing higher sensitivity in detecting a poor glycemic control with effects on outcomes to avoid "overdiagnosis".