Key result
Text provides non-clinical administrative data without evaluable clinical cardiology findings.
Why the study?
The impact of gestational diabetes mellitus on fetal heart rate and the value of computerized cardiotocography in detecting subtle fetal wellbeing alterations were evaluated.
Does computerized cardiotocography detect fetal heart rate alterations in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus compared to normal controls?
Does computerized cardiotocography detect fetal heart rate alterations in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus compared to normal controls?
Computerized cardiotocography can detect slight but significant alterations in fetal heart rate in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus, which correlate with neonatal reactivity.
No relevant clinical data provided; leaves open whether computerized cardiotocography detects fetal heart rate changes in gestational diabetes.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the value of computerized cardiotocography (cCTG) in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Purpose of study. We studied fetal heart rate (FHR) recordings from 100 pregnant women affected by GDM on diet therapy, 60 pregnant women affected by GDM on insulin therapy and 100 normal pregnant controls. The results were compared among the groups and related to neonatal umbilical artery cord blood analysis at birth. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Baseline FHR and the duration of episodes of low variation were significantly higher in diabetic than in controls and were negatively related to umbilical artery glycemia at birth, whereas the short-term variation in diabetics was significantly lower than in controls and was positively related to. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that GDM does impact FHR. The alteration is slight but evident; it reflects fetal wellbeing and correlate with neonatal reactivity. Only cCTG may allow to detect those slight but significant differences.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Buscicchio et al. (2009) studied this question. The provided text is a corporate modern slavery statement and does not contain clinical trial data.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: