Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lost in Northern Alberta
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
But the risk increasing by 50% may actually be a reasonably small increase in risk, depending on what the actual numbers are. It doesn't mean it's going up TO 50% risk of stillbirth, which is sort of what it sounds like.
If, let's say, the risk of stillbirth is 1 in 200 or 0.5% at 38 weeks (making all these numbers up!), and slightly higher, say 0.6% at 39 weeks, and then 1.0% at 40 weeks, that would be a roughly 50% increase from 39 weeks 0.6% to 1.0%. I think my math is right there. That risk may be overall acceptable to you, although it is twice the risk of stillbirth that you had at 38 weeks. Does that make sense?
This is not true for what is called "gestational diabetes". There is solid research to show that the diagnosis of GD is subjective and not accurate - and the treatment does not reduce risk (which is basically big babies).
The risk of stillbirth comes with uncontrolled pre-pregnancy Type I or Type II diabetes, mainly Type I. If you are on insulin prior to getting pregnant this could be an issue if you're not good at monitoring your blood sugars or taking your insulin or medication.
The reason for this is that uncontrolled, dangerous swings in blood sugar affects placental (and of course umbilical cord) formation, adherance and growth.
This is not an issue with what is called "GD".
I think the stillbirth card is drawn out so women will comply with induction at or before term. The biggest risk that docs worry about with "GD" is big babies. They talk about low blood sugar in the baby, but that's a whole 'nother rant.
I'd ask for some research and studies. Especially when you're talking about women that are not insulin dependent.
Based on the research, the whole testing process, diagnosis and treatment of GD is inaccurate and not helpful.
|This intrigues me. Why do you think it's less helpful than fingersticks? You're given a boatload of sugar and a limited time to process it. Either you can do it or you can't|
I think the GTT is useful in today's hurried society because docs don't want to take the time to pore over a food diary and corresponding numbers, but even if they did, I think they'd still want a GTT to prove it.
I do have another question for Pamamidwife and other GD nay-sayers. I keep encountering well-meaning women who, upon hearing my GD diagnosis, ask me if I've read the lit (no more Goer!!! ), have I educated myself, etc. When I go into the details--high readings despite diet and exercise, insulin required 3rd tri, etc.--it shuts them up. What did they expect to hear? Has anyone encountered a pregnant woman who was diagnosed GD but didn't have high levels? Everyone on this board who's been diagnosed seems to be pretty sure they have it.
|26 members and 9,958 guests|
|fange , happymamasallie , Janeen0225 , jcdfarmer , katelove , Lydia08 , Michele123 , moominmamma , mummabear13 , oaksie68 , perspective , Poppy Charlotte , redrockband , RollerCoasterMama , RosemaryV , rubelin , SchoolmarmDE , sciencemum , serrapep87 , shanna-cat , talldarkeyes , zebra15|
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.|