Search

Background: Maternal gestational diabetes (GDM), small (SGA) and large (LGA) for gestational age neonates are associated with increased morbidity in both mother and child. We studied how different levels of first trimester pregnancy associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) and free beta human chorionic gonadotropin (fβ-hCG) were associated with SGA and LGA in GDM pregnancies and controls. Methods: Altogether 23 482 women with singleton pregnancies participated in first trimester combined screening and delivered between 2014 and 2018 in Northern Finland and were included in this retrospective case-control study. Women with GDM (n = 4697) and controls without GDM (n = 18 492) were divided into groups below 5th and 10th or above 90th and 95th percentile (pc) PAPP-A and fβ-hCG MoM levels. SGA was defined as a birthweight more than two standard deviations (SD) below and LGA more than two SDs above the sex-specific and gestational age-specific reference mean. Odds ratios were adjusted (aOR) for maternal age, BMI, ethnicity, IVF/ICSI, parity and smoking. Results: In pregnancies with GDM the proportion of SGA was 2.6% and LGA 4.5%, compared to 3.3% (p = 0.011) and 1.8% (p < 0.001) in the control group, respectively. In ≤ 5th and ≤ 10th pc PAPP-A groups, aORs for SGA were 2.7 (95% CI 1.5–4.7) and 2.2 (95% CI 1.4–3.5) in the GDM group and 3.8 (95% CI 3.0–4.9) and 2.8 (95% CI 2.3–3.5) in the reference group, respectively. When considering LGA, there was no difference in aORs in any high PAPP-A groups. In the low ≤ 5 percentile fβ-hCG MoM group, aORs for SGA was 2.3 (95% CI 1.8–3.1) in the control group. In fβ-hCG groups with GDM there was no association with SGA and the only significant difference was ≥ 90 percentile group, aOR 1.6 (95% CI 1.1–2.5) for LGA. Conclusion: Association with low PAPP-A and SGA seems to be present despite GDM status. High PAPP-A levels are not associated with increased LGA risk in women with or without GDM. Low fβ-hCG levels are associated with SGA only in non-GDM pregnancies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is well documented that pregnant women experience increased worry and uncertainty following a high-risk prenatal screening result. While waiting for diagnostic results this worry continues to linger. It has been suggested that high-risk women put the pregnancy mentally 'on hold' during this period, however, not enough is known about how high-risk women and their partners cope while waiting for diagnostic results. The aim of this study was to identify the strategies employed to cope with worry and uncertainty. Methods: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 16 high-risk couples who underwent diagnostic testing. The couples were recruited at a university hospital fetal medicine unit in Denmark. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: All couples reported feeling worried and sad upon receiving a high-risk screening result. While waiting for diagnostic results, the couples focused on coming to their own understanding of the situation and employed both social withdrawal and social engagement as strategies to prevent worry from escalating. Additionally, couples used gratitude, reassuring reasoning and selective memory as means to maintain hopes for a good outcome. Discussions about what to do in case of an abnormal test result were notably absent in the accounts of waiting. This bracketing of the potential abnormal result allowed the couples to hold on to a 'normal' pregnancy and to employ an 'innocent-till-proven-guilty' approach to their worries about the fetus's health. None of the interviewed couples regretted having prenatal screening and all of them expected to have prenatal screening in a future pregnancy. Conclusions: The couples in this study did not put the pregnancy mentally 'on hold'. Worry and uncertainty must be understood as managed through a diverse range of practical and emotional strategies that change and overlap in the process of waiting. Clinicians may support appropriate ways of coping with worry and waiting through empathetic and empowering clinical communication. In addition to providing adequate information and presenting options available, clinicians may support high-risk women/couples by encouraging them to seek their own personal understandings and management strategies as a way to gain some control in an uncertain situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]