Comparison of Ultrasound Findings Associated with Adverse Fetal, Obstetric, and Neonatal Outcomes in Pregestational Type 1 And Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review
Alexandria C Kraus,Lauren M Kucirka,Julie Johnson,Albatoul AbouNouar,Sean V Connelly,Hannah L Thel,Heli S Kavi,Brazil M Bailey,Madelyn K Fox,Kimberly Malloy,Jamie L Conklin,Erin Huprich,Kim A Boggess
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2414-0932
2024-10-29
Abstract:Objective: We aimed to summarize the available evidence examining the association between prenatal ultrasound findings and adverse fetal, obstetric, and neonatal outcomes in pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and to evaluate whether the predictive value of ultrasound findings for adverse outcomes varies between T1DM and T2DM pregnancies. Study design: We conducted a systematic review of the existing literature through August 12, 2024. We included articles in English that reported associations between ultrasound findings and fetal, obstetric, and neonatal outcomes in pregnant people with T1DM and T2DM. The primary outcome of interest was stillbirth; secondary outcomes were neonatal demise, neonatal intensive care unit admission, neonatal hypoglycemia, respiratory distress syndrome, polycythemia, hyperbilirubinemia, organomegaly, electrolyte disturbances, shoulder dystocia, permanent brachial plexus injury, cord gas, Apgar scores, large for gestational age (LGA), small for gestational age (SGA), and preterm birth. Two independent reviewers examined articles at the abstract level and, if eligible, at the full-text level; disagreements were adjudicated by a third reviewer. Results: Of the 2,088 unique citations reviewed, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria describing associations between ultrasound findings and fetal, obstetric, and neonatal outcomes among a total of 1,165 pregnant people with T1DM and 489 pregnant people with T2DM. Most studies (10/12) examined the association between ultrasound measures of growth, including estimated fetal weight and its individual components, abdominal wall thickness, head circumference to abdominal circumference ratio, and birth weight, LGA or SGA. Studies did not examine stillbirth, neonatal demise, or maternal outcomes other than cesarean section. Conclusion: This systematic review synthesizes the available literature on ultrasound risk markers of adverse fetal, obstetric, and neonatal outcomes separately in pregnant people with T1DM and T2DM. We identified very few studies that distinguished between pregnant people with T1DM and T2DM, and the majority focused on surrogate outcomes (e.g., LGA, SGA) of morbidity. Our findings highlight the need for further studies investigating these distinct diseases to provide evidence for antenatal management recommendations. Key points: · This systematic review compares ultrasound risk markers for adverse outcomes in pregnancies with T1DM and T2DM.. · Few studies compare ultrasound risk markers for adverse outcomes among pregnancies with T1DM and T2DM.. · Additional targeted studies to inform antenatal ultrasound care are necessary..