GD moms, how is it going? - Page 18

[livacreature]

So far, so good.

There were a few things that got a bit hairy.  I had a (rather expected on my end) low blood sugar Monday morning.  They were a bit unhappy that I was refusing an insulin drip in lieu of my pump, but I got it back up and was able to keep it between 85-95 from pitocin to delivery (yay).  At some point during delivery, the infusion set came out and I didn't notice for a few hours, so I went a bit high, but it came down quickly and has been good since.  I did get an epidural at the very very end that I (and my team) did not realize was the very very end.  It was only in for an hour between insertion and after birth, so I was lucky to avoid any of the unpleasant side effects.  She was little, like we were expecting, 6 pounds, 2 ounces, and 18 inches long, but she came out with the quickness, so I did tear pretty badly.  I had discussed waiting and seeing about the episidomy a minute or two before she was born, and there just was not even time for that.  I was pretty convinced I'd rather tear, and I'm still glad that I didn't agree to get cut.  I'm very glad that was avoided.  Apparently I have a very short perinium, so I didn't take too much!  I'm not uncomfortable, except when I cough (will this lung thing go away!?!?!?!) and it feels like I'm being torn again, so i'm taking some percoset and treating with ice.

Baby's blood sugars are great, she is feeding great.  She had slightly low body temperature so spent an hour or two on a warmer, but if that is the worst, than I'm pretty happy with that!  I'm so tired. I haven't slept more than a few hours since Thursday night.  Baby did well sleeping last night, but they were coming in every 2 hours to make sure I tested my blood sugar, which got pretty old.  My insulin needs dropped a lot, endo told me not to treat anything very aggressively.  It is weird having that flexibility/lack of guilt/permission for it to not be perfect.  Its stayed under 150, so I'm pretty happy with that.

Lifeguard: Did she get stable?  How long did it end up taking?

[lifeguard]

livacreature - sounds like things went well overall.

It took a little over a day for her to stabilize but much longer to "prove" it because the doctor wanted 3 consecutive good readings.

[~pi]

livacreature, so glad things went well. I am also enjoying the slack postpartum guidelines, which for my team were basically: "Don't pass out. Run higher for a few weeks." Came just in time for Canadian Thanksgiving and my mom's pumpkin pie.

lifeguard, guidelines require 3 consecutive readings above 2.6 mmol/L. It was probably hospital policy, not just physician preference. Glad to hear she finally got three in a row!

[lifeguard]

pi - unfortuntely they wanted above 3.0 so one 2.8 reading put us back dramatically. Frustrating that yet again there is no consistent model of care.

[emmaegbert]

so, do any of you have any input or thoughts?

my midwives are pretty much letting me decide how much prenatal testing/monitoring to do. We were talking about setting up a biophysical and/or NSTs, but when? and the question is, which? they would have to be in totally different locations, both of which would be at least a 90minute travel for me on public transpo (with my 2yo). And because I have medicaid (insurance for low income women) which is run through an HMO here in NYC, many hospitals and centers won't take my insurance.

At first we said start at 42 weeks. Now the other MW is saying, maybe consider some testing at 40 weeks. Or certainly schedule it by 41 (in the hopes that baby will be born by then). They agree that my blood sugar numbers are so good that my risk profile is not really any different than anyone else. But they also say, they are not sure what the research says about that. And, I am 37, so there is the "elderly mother" risk too.

I am not eager to start NSTs and biophysicals. But I wonder if part of it has to do with just the hassle and me being lazy and tired. And I've never had a NST in my previous 2 pregnancies. I had one biophysical with #2 but it was a non-event. Everything looked fine, we couldn't see much by then b/c she was crammed in there. Basically we learned nothing new (already knew her position). And the size estimate was kind of... well the error range was huge. And we all know I am going to have a big baby.... so its not like I need a biophysical to tell me that.

Do you think I am being too blase? I am thinking of going ahead and scheduling stuff for 41 weeks. And which do you think is more relevant?

[NicaG]

Originally Posted by emmaegbert 

so, do any of you have any input or thoughts?

my midwives are pretty much letting me decide how much prenatal testing/monitoring to do. We were talking about setting up a biophysical and/or NSTs, but when? and the question is, which? they would have to be in totally different locations, both of which would be at least a 90minute travel for me on public transpo (with my 2yo). And because I have medicaid (insurance for low income women) which is run through an HMO here in NYC, many hospitals and centers won't take my insurance.

At first we said start at 42 weeks. Now the other MW is saying, maybe consider some testing at 40 weeks. Or certainly schedule it by 41 (in the hopes that baby will be born by then). They agree that my blood sugar numbers are so good that my risk profile is not really any different than anyone else. But they also say, they are not sure what the research says about that. And, I am 37, so there is the "elderly mother" risk too.

I am not eager to start NSTs and biophysicals. But I wonder if part of it has to do with just the hassle and me being lazy and tired. And I've never had a NST in my previous 2 pregnancies. I had one biophysical with #2 but it was a non-event. Everything looked fine, we couldn't see much by then b/c she was crammed in there. Basically we learned nothing new (already knew her position). And the size estimate was kind of... well the error range was huge. And we all know I am going to have a big baby.... so its not like I need a biophysical to tell me that.

Do you think I am being too blase? I am thinking of going ahead and scheduling stuff for 41 weeks. And which do you think is more relevant?

Emma, have you made any decisions?  I've been going in once a week for NSTs, it's a hassle, I hear you about being tired and not wanting to bother.  I lived in NYC for many years and commuted on subway/NJ transit train up until the end of my first pregnancy, and I can't imagine hauling my pregnant self across the city for 90+ minutes with a toddler in tow.  Still, after reading Dragonfly's story about a bad NST followed by immediate action made me take NSTs more seriously.  If I were you I'd probably schedule one for 41 weeks at least.  Hopefully baby will come sooner.

As for me, I'm scheduled for induction on Friday 10/21.  I will be 39+1. Counting the days....

[emmaegbert]

Thanks NicaG, I pretty much decided the same- I will go ahead and schedule a NST at 41weeks and go from there.

Pretty sure that I'm going to be the only GD mom left standing in our DDC though... what with a late EDD (10/24) and HCPs who don't induce before 42/43 weeks

[lifeguard]

Wow - this thread was really buried!

Here's an article I think everyone might find interesting.

I also am curious - how big did our babies end up being?

dd arrived at 40 weeks & 8lbs 14oz - bs was well controlled throughout. In comparison ds was 39 weeks & 8lbs 9oz - bs was only really well-controlled for the last few weeks.

[emmaegbert]

Lifeguard I don't see the link? can you try again?

My DD was 9lbs at 40+4, very well-controlled GD. DS was 8lb6oz, no GD dx (was screened 3 times), at 38+1. SO, he was actually bigger if you consider he would have likely put on another pound+ in the 16 days of extra gestation that his sister had. Curious about this one. feels big!

[lifeguard]

I'll try again - sorry.

[emmaegbert]

oh and I see one of the MWs today (its THE BEST, they come to my house!) and after discussing with the other MW last week, she advised I schedule a BPP first, and we'll go from there. She said not for size check, but to check on fluid level, blood flow and condition of the placenta, and muscle tone of the baby. We'll schedule it for 41 weeks and hopefully I won't need it. (cause I'll have the baby first). They said they get much more info from BPP than NST.

and lifeguard, thanks for posting that! I'd read that each 6m of breastfeeding reduces moms risk of type II later in life but this looks more focused and explains a possible mechanism too. good news! I've already been BFing for 4 1/2 years.... so.... expecting at least to go a total of 6.5 to 7 years of BFIng total over the 3 kids... nice to have SOMETHING reducing my risks b/c it seems like I've got quite a few.

[lifeguard]

emmaegbert - I agree - it is rare you find something concrete that says it reduces your risk.

[emmaegbert]

pretty sure I was the last GD mom standing, but I thought I'd just update that my baby was... SMALL!

She was born at home, no induction or anything, at 40+4 (exactly the same gestational age as my second). She is 21 inches and 7lbs14oz. I was so surprised when I picked her up at her size... my second baby was 9lbs. She looks so different- skinny butt, skinny legs... but we love her.

My labor was very short (active labor was about 45 minutes, though there was a bunch of stop and start early labor for about 12 hours before the birth). We didn't bother monitoring blood sugar during or after. I suppose if anything seemed "off" the MWs would have but she was just fine.

Placenta was in perfect shape too. (deteriorating placenta is a concern with GD as I am sure you ladies know).

[DragonflyMom]

Originally Posted by lifeguard 

I also am curious - how big did our babies end up being?

Jasper was born 40 weeks exactly and weighed 5 pounds 14.4 ounces...