Abstract
Objective: To compare healthcare utilization and outcomes using the Carpenter-Coustan (CC) criteria vs. the National Diabetes Data Group (NDDG) criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study. Prior to 8/21/2013, patients were classified as "GDM by CC" if they met criteria. After 8/21/2013, patients were classified as "GDM by NDDG" if they met criteria and "Meeting CC non-GDM" if they met CC, but failed to reach NDDG criteria. "Non-GDM" women did not meet any criteria for GDM. Records were reviewed after delivery. Results: There was a 41% reduction in GDM diagnosed using NDDG compared to CC (P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in triage visits, ultrasounds for growth or hospital admissions. Women classified as "Meeting CC non-GDM" were more likely to have preeclampsia than "GDM by CC" women [OR 11.11 (2.7, 50.0), P = 0.0006]. Newborns of mothers "Meeting CC non-GDM" were more likely to be admitted to neonatal intensive care units than "GDM by CC" [OR 6.25 (1.7, 33.3), P = 0.006], "GDM by NDDG" [OR 5.56 (1.3, 33.3), P = 0.018] and "Non-GDM" newborns [OR 6.47 (2.6, 14.8), P = 0.0003]. Conclusion: Using the NDDG criteria may increase healthcare costs because while it decreases the number of patients being diagnosed with GDM, it may also increase maternal and neonatal complications without changing maternal healthcare utilization.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 401-409 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Journal of Perinatal Medicine |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - May 24 2018 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
- Obstetrics and Gynecology
Cite this
}
Comparison of healthcare utilization and outcomes by gestational diabetes diagnostic criteria. / Lauring, Julianne R.; Kunselman, Allen; Pauli, Jaimey; Repke, John; Ural, Serdar.
In: Journal of Perinatal Medicine, Vol. 46, No. 4, 24.05.2018, p. 401-409.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of healthcare utilization and outcomes by gestational diabetes diagnostic criteria
AU - Lauring, Julianne R.
AU - Kunselman, Allen
AU - Pauli, Jaimey
AU - Repke, John
AU - Ural, Serdar
PY - 2018/5/24
Y1 - 2018/5/24
N2 - Objective: To compare healthcare utilization and outcomes using the Carpenter-Coustan (CC) criteria vs. the National Diabetes Data Group (NDDG) criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study. Prior to 8/21/2013, patients were classified as "GDM by CC" if they met criteria. After 8/21/2013, patients were classified as "GDM by NDDG" if they met criteria and "Meeting CC non-GDM" if they met CC, but failed to reach NDDG criteria. "Non-GDM" women did not meet any criteria for GDM. Records were reviewed after delivery. Results: There was a 41% reduction in GDM diagnosed using NDDG compared to CC (P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in triage visits, ultrasounds for growth or hospital admissions. Women classified as "Meeting CC non-GDM" were more likely to have preeclampsia than "GDM by CC" women [OR 11.11 (2.7, 50.0), P = 0.0006]. Newborns of mothers "Meeting CC non-GDM" were more likely to be admitted to neonatal intensive care units than "GDM by CC" [OR 6.25 (1.7, 33.3), P = 0.006], "GDM by NDDG" [OR 5.56 (1.3, 33.3), P = 0.018] and "Non-GDM" newborns [OR 6.47 (2.6, 14.8), P = 0.0003]. Conclusion: Using the NDDG criteria may increase healthcare costs because while it decreases the number of patients being diagnosed with GDM, it may also increase maternal and neonatal complications without changing maternal healthcare utilization.
AB - Objective: To compare healthcare utilization and outcomes using the Carpenter-Coustan (CC) criteria vs. the National Diabetes Data Group (NDDG) criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study. Prior to 8/21/2013, patients were classified as "GDM by CC" if they met criteria. After 8/21/2013, patients were classified as "GDM by NDDG" if they met criteria and "Meeting CC non-GDM" if they met CC, but failed to reach NDDG criteria. "Non-GDM" women did not meet any criteria for GDM. Records were reviewed after delivery. Results: There was a 41% reduction in GDM diagnosed using NDDG compared to CC (P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in triage visits, ultrasounds for growth or hospital admissions. Women classified as "Meeting CC non-GDM" were more likely to have preeclampsia than "GDM by CC" women [OR 11.11 (2.7, 50.0), P = 0.0006]. Newborns of mothers "Meeting CC non-GDM" were more likely to be admitted to neonatal intensive care units than "GDM by CC" [OR 6.25 (1.7, 33.3), P = 0.006], "GDM by NDDG" [OR 5.56 (1.3, 33.3), P = 0.018] and "Non-GDM" newborns [OR 6.47 (2.6, 14.8), P = 0.0003]. Conclusion: Using the NDDG criteria may increase healthcare costs because while it decreases the number of patients being diagnosed with GDM, it may also increase maternal and neonatal complications without changing maternal healthcare utilization.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85037656268&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85037656268&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1515/jpm-2017-0076
DO - 10.1515/jpm-2017-0076
M3 - Article
C2 - 28753546
AN - SCOPUS:85037656268
VL - 46
SP - 401
EP - 409
JO - Journal of Perinatal Medicine
JF - Journal of Perinatal Medicine
SN - 0300-5577
IS - 4
ER -