Endocrine Abstracts

Introduction and objective: The pregnancies in women with pregestational diabetes are associated with increased risk of abortion, birth defects, complications of pregnancy and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Pregnancy planning would be associated with better metabolic control, and therefore better obstetric and perinatal outcomes. The objetive of this study has been to evaluate the obstetric results of women with pregestacional type 1 diabetes and compare planned with not planned pregnancies.

Material and methods: Retrospective cross-sectional study including pregnancies followed in our Endocrinology and Pregnancy Unit (1996–2010). We compare the results between planned and unplanned pregnancies and present descriptive data (frequencies, means and S.D.). The frequencies are compared with the χ² test, the means by parametric tests (Student’ t-test) or nonparametric (Mann–Whitney). It was considered significant a P<0.05.

The results in planned (122 pregnancies) vs non planned (136 pregnancies) were: we found differences in: age (years): 30.7 vs 28.8, P 0.007; evolution DM (years): 16.8 vs 14.1, P 0.014; first visit (week): 6.8 vs 10, P 0.000; CSII treated: 34.7 vs 5.9%, P 0.000; HbA1c pregestational: 6.6 vs 8.2, P 0.000; HbA1c first trimester: 6.4 vs 7.5%, P 0.000; HbA1c second trimester: 6.07 vs 6.48, P 0.000; respiratory distress: 3.2 vs 12.2%, P 0.021; birth trauma: 0 vs 10%, P 0.002 and Jaundice (phototherapy): 14.4 vs 29.5%, P 0.015. There were no differences in HbA1c third trimester: 6.1 vs 6.2; retinopathy worsening: 6.4 vs 7.5%; nephropathy worsening: 2.9 vs 1%; abortion: 14.4 vs 16.5%; preterm (<37w): 20.8 vs 27.4%; cesarean: 56.8 vs 56.6% and other perinatal complications.

Conclusions: Planning pregnancy is associated with better glycemic control before conception, in first and second trimesters and better perinatal outcomes (reduced presence of respiratory distress, birth trauma and jaundice requiring phototherapy).

Declaration of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.

Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.