acceptable blood glucose numbers? - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 8 Old 04-13-2008, 10:39 AM - Thread Starter
 
kate3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I aim for very tight control for my diabetic patients. I like fastings under 95 and post parandials less than 110 (definitely no higher than 120).

Good luck.
kate3 is offline  
#2 of 8 Old 04-13-2008, 03:12 PM
 
cristeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,791
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I took a workshop on GD recently from Gail Hart, and she discussed the studies that have been done indicating that tight control of diabetics actually causes more health problems than loose control.

The ADA recommendation for fasting glucose levels is 115 for non-pg. Pg women may have a slightly higher level, but most doctors use a lower number.

The numbers have been artificially lowered by doctors who want more women to fall into the "at risk" category so they get more money for treating them. Not because there's any scientific reason for the lowering. I'd go with the number from 2005, they're more in line with the research.

Cristeen ~ Always remembering our stillheart.gif  warrior ~ Our rainbow1284.gif  is 3, how'd that happen?!?! 

We welcomed another rainbow1284.gifstillheart.gif  warrior in May 2012!! 

2012 Decluttering challenge - 575/2012

cristeen is offline  
#3 of 8 Old 04-13-2008, 07:58 PM - Thread Starter
 
kate3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This article might help you-it has a lot of good information on GDM in general and recommendations for glucose control during pregnancy, post partum, and in long-term follow-up.

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi...plement_2/S251

Quote:
The numbers have been artificially lowered by doctors who want more women to fall into the "at risk" category so they get more money for treating them.
Source?
kate3 is offline  
#4 of 8 Old 04-13-2008, 09:42 PM
 
maxmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti
Posts: 2,454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kate3 View Post
I aim for very tight control for my diabetic patients. I like fastings under 95 and post parandials less than 110 (definitely no higher than 120).

Good luck.
Source? Because these aren't the ACOG or ADA standards.

Also, you sound quite condescending when talking about what you "like" and what YOU "aim for". Have you ever been GDM? Ever checked your sugars five times a day, or used insulin four? It's very difficult. I see my role as a HCP to facilitate the client's meeting of goals, not to say "I like this for my patients". How is that different from an OB of the '50s saying "I like my girls to stay on the thin side in pregnancy"?

mama to Max (2/02) and Sophie (10/06); wife to my fabulous girl
maxmama is offline  
#5 of 8 Old 04-13-2008, 10:53 PM - Thread Starter
 
kate3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Also, you sound quite condescending when talking about what you "like" and what YOU "aim for".
My intention was not to be condescending-just to show that how I practice does differ from ACOG and ADA. I am very much aware that the numbers I posted are different from national guidelines (see that article I linked). After 18 years of working with moms who have GDM I have learned what seems to work best and I was sharing that opinion. I never thought my choice of pronoun would cause a stir!

But to answer your question: I have checked my BS 5 times a day (yes, it hurts and yes, it is disruptive). I am completely aware of the disruption a diagnosis of GDM causes and the learning curve that is associated with managing it. But it is also well documented that very good glucose control (normal sugars, not hypoglycemia) is associated with a significant decrease in adverse outcomes. Excellent glucose management can be the difference between a low intervention normal delivery and a baby that stays with mom and a medically managed (or surgical) delivery and a baby that spends days in the NICU. So many pregnancy complications cannot be prevented or well managed once they occur: PIH, PTL, PROM, previa, abruption, etc. This one can be.
kate3 is offline  
#6 of 8 Old 04-14-2008, 02:21 AM
 
mousebandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SW Oregon
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
How would you practitioners feel about a level of 84 about 2 hours after eating a typical meal? Is that too low, or is that just fine? (I know this isn't exactly in line with the current discussion, but hoping to get a little insight here!)

THANKS!

Tracey Mouse

Tracey R. Happy Helpmeet to Jeff, and Mama to Corey (ds, 22yo), Justin (ds, 20yo), Bekah (dd, 3yo), and Miah (Jeremiah, ds, 17mo), and baby Rachel, vasa previa survivor, 4 wks old.

mousebandit is offline  
#7 of 8 Old 04-14-2008, 03:12 AM
 
crazy_eights's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Nisht ahir un nish aher
Posts: 6,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cristeen View Post
I took a workshop on GD recently from Gail Hart, and she discussed the studies that have been done indicating that tight control of diabetics actually causes more health problems than loose control.
I love Gail Hart. Any studies you can link us to?
crazy_eights is offline  
#8 of 8 Old 04-14-2008, 03:15 AM
 
crazy_eights's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Nisht ahir un nish aher
Posts: 6,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kate3 View Post
This article might help you-it has a lot of good information on GDM in general and recommendations for glucose control during pregnancy, post partum, and in long-term follow-up.

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi...plement_2/S251


Source?
From your link:
Quote:
High-risk: Perform blood glucose testing as soon as feasible, using the procedures described above if one or more of these are present:

* Severe obesity
* Strong family history of type 2 diabetes
* Previous history of: GDM, impaired glucose metabolism, or glucosuria
I find it interesting in light of all the info coming out that glucosuria doesn't mean much in pregnancy due to changes in glomerular filtration.

ETA a quote from a mainstream medical text:
Quote:
Glycosuria is more common during pregnancy because of the lowering of the renal threshold for glucose excretion.

The increase in the glomerular filtration rate delivers an overwhelming glucose load to the renal tubules. Reabsorption, which is normally complete, is thus compromised.
crazy_eights is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off