Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sonographic Evaluation and the Pregnancy Complicated by Diabetes

  • Published:
Current Diabetes Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sonography is a fundamental tool in the management of pregnancies affected by maternal diabetes. Purposeful use of ultrasound in each trimester provides an invaluable amount of information about the developing fetus including gestational age and growth patterns, anatomical structure and function, assessment of fetal well-being, and prediction of adverse outcome. There are great ongoing research efforts in this field of prenatal diagnosis and management, yet even more are needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance, •• Of major importance

  1. Robinson HP, Fleming JE: A critical evaluation of sonar "crown-rump length" measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1975, 82:702–710.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pedersen JF: Ultrasound studies on fetal crown-rump length in early normal and diabetic pregnancy. Dan Med Bull 1986, 33:296–304.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mongelli M, Wilcox M, Gardosi J: Estimating the date of confinement: ultrasonographic biometry versus certain menstrual dates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996, 174(1 Pt 1):278–281.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cosmi E, Piazze JJ, Ruozi A, et al.: Structural-tridimensional study of yolk sac in pregnancies complicated by diabetes. J Perinat Med 2005, 33:132–136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Berdahl DM, Blaine J, Van Voorhis B, et al.: Detection of enlarged yolk sac on early ultrasound is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Fertil Steril 2010, 94:1535–1537.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. • Timor-Tritsch IE, Fuchs KM, Monteagudo A, et al.: Performing a fetal anatomy scan at the time of first-trimester screening. Obstet Gynecol 2009, 113(2 Pt 1):402–407. This comprehensive review describes the benefits and limitations of screening for anatomic defects in the first trimester using the most current evidence.

  7. Ebrashy A, El Kateb A, Momtaz M, et al.: 13-14-week fetal anatomy scan: a 5-year prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010, 35:292–296.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Spencer K, Cicero S, Atzei A, et al.: The influence of maternal insulin-dependent diabetes on fetal nuchal translucency thickness and first-trimester maternal serum biochemical markers of aneuploidy. Prenat Diagn 2005, 25: 927–929.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Spencer K, Cowans NJ, Spencer CE, et al.: A re-evaluation of the influence of maternal insulin-dependent diabetes on fetal nuchal translucency thickness and first-trimester maternal serum biochemical markers of aneuploidy. Prenat Diagn 2010, 30:937–940.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kelekci S, Yilmaz B, Savan K, et al.: Can increased nuchal translucency in the first trimester of pregnancy predict gestational diabetes mellitus. J Obstet Gynaecol 2005, 25:579–582.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Plasencia W, Maiz N, Bonino S, et al.: Uterine artery Doppler at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks in the prediction of pre-eclampsia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007, 30:742–749.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Herraiz I, Arbues J, Camano I, et al.: Application of a first-trimester prediction model for pre-eclampsia based on uterine arteries and maternal history in high-risk pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 2009, 29:1123–1129.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hackmon R, Le Scale KB, Horani J, et al.: Is severe macrosomia manifested at 11-14 weeks of gestation? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008, 32:740–743.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Poon LC, Karagiannis G, Stratieva V, et al.: First-trimester prediction of macrosomia. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010 Aug 27 [Epub ahead of print].

  15. Poon LC, Karagiannis G, Staboulidou I, et al.: Reference range of birth weight with gestation and first-trimester prediction of small-for-gestation neonates. Prenat Diagn 2010 Aug 26 [Epub ahead of print].

  16. Cousins L: Congenital anomalies among infants of diabetic mothers. Etiology, prevention, prenatal diagnosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983, 147:333–338.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Miller E, Hare JW, Cloherty JP, et al.: Elevated maternal hemoglobin A1c in early pregnancy and major congenital anomalies in infants of diabetic mothers. N Engl J Med 1981, 304:1331–1334.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Albert TJ, Landon MB, Wheller JJ, et al.: Prenatal detection of fetal anomalies in pregnancies complicated by insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996, 174:1424–1428.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ray JG, Vermeulen MJ, Meier C, et al.: Risk of congenital anomalies detected during antenatal serum screening in women with pregestational diabetes. Q J Med 2004, 97:651–653.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Pijlman BM, De Koning B, Wladimiroff JW, et al.: Detection of fetal structural malformations by ultrasound in insulin-dependent pregnant women. Ultrasound Med Biol 1989, 15:541–543.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gomez KJ, Dowdy K, Allen G, et al.: Evaluation of ultrasound diagnosis of fetal anomalies in women with pregestational diabetes: University of Florida experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988, 159:584–586.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bashiri A, Shizaf B, Burstein E, et al.: Three dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of caudal regression syndrome at 14 gestational weeks. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2009, 280:505–507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins: ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 58. Ultrasonography in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2004, 104:1449–1458.

  24. Wong SF, Chan FY, Cincotta RB, et al.: Routine ultrasound screening in diabetic pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002, 19:171–176.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dashe JS, McIntire DD, Twickler DM: Effect of maternal obesity on the ultrasound detection of anomalous fetuses. Obstet Gynecol 2009, 113:1001–1007.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Davey BT, Seubert DE, Phoon CK: Indications for fetal echocardiography high referral, low yield? Obstet Gynecol Surv 2009, 64:405–415.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Muller PR, James A, Feldman K, et al.: Utility of fetal echocardiogram in high-risk patients. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2005, 45:117–121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Odibo AO, Coassola KM, Stamilio DM, et al.: Should all pregnant diabetic women undergo a fetal echocardiography? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing four screening strategies. Prenat Diagn 2006, 26:39–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. •• Sekhavat S, Kishore N, Levine JC: Screening fetal echocardiography in diabetic mothers with normal findings on detailed anatomic survey. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010, 35:178–182. This retrospective study from Children’s Hospital Boston of 584 patient referrals for fetal echocardiography demonstrated that fetal echocardiography adds little to the care of women with diabetes after an otherwise normal anatomic survey. This study has the potential to vastly affect referral patterns in the management of diabetic pregnancies.

  30. Sacks DA: Etiology, detection, and management of fetal macrosomia in pregnancies complicated by diabetes mellitus. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2007, 50:980–989.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. •• Persson M, Norman M, Hanson U: Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in type 1 diabetic pregnancies: a large, population-based study. Diabetes Care 2009, 32:2005–2009. This population-based study compared obstetric and perinatal outcomes between over 5000 type 1 diabetic pregnancies and 1.26 million pregnancies in the general population of Sweden.

  32. Langer O: Ultrasound biometry evolves in the management of diabetes in pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005, 26:585–595.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sokol RJ, Blackwell SC: ACOG practice bulletin: Shoulder dystocia. Number 40, November 2002. (Replaces practice pattern number 7, October 1997). Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003, 80:87–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rouse DJ, Owen J, Goldenberg RL, et al.: The effectiveness and costs of elective cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by ultrasound. JAMA 1996, 276:1480–1486.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Melamed N, Yogev Y, Meizner I, et al.: Sonographic prediction of fetal macrosomia: the consequences of false diagnosis. J Ultrasound Med 2010, 29:225–230.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Roberts AB, Mitchell J, Murphy C, et al.: Fetal liver length in diabetic pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994, 170(5 Pt 1):1308–1312.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Morales-Rosello J, Leon-Mendoza MT: Study of abdominal circumference proportions in fetuses with growth disorders. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2005, 272:40–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, et al.: Large cross-sectional area of the umbilical cord as a predictor of fetal macrosomia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007, 30:861–866.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ben-Haroush A, Melamed N, Mashiach R, et al.: Use of the amniotic fluid index combined with estimated fetal weight within 10 days of delivery for prediction of macrosomia at birth. J Ultrasound Med 2008, 27:1029–1032.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Catalano PM, Thomas A, Huston-Presley L, et al.: Increased fetal adiposity: a very sensitive marker of abnormal in utero development. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003, 189:1698–1704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Higgins MF, Russell NM, Mulcahy CH, et al.: Fetal anterior abdominal wall thickness in diabetic pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008, 140:43–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Scioscia M, Scioscia F, Vimercati A, et al.: Estimation of fetal weight by measurement of fetal thigh soft-tissue thickness in the late third trimester. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008, 31:314–320.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Abramowicz JS, Rana S, Abramowicz S: Fetal cheek-to-cheek diameter in the prediction of mode of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005, 192:1205–1211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. • Lee W, Balasubramaniam M, Deter RL, et al.: New fetal weight estimation models using fractional limb volume. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009, 34:556–565. This prospective cross-sectional study offers an EFW formula using three-dimensional volume that is superior to standard two-dimensional measurements. It has the potential to greatly impact standard clinical practice.

  45. Dudley DJ: Diabetic-associated stillbirth: incidence, pathophysiology, and prevention. Clin Perinatol 2007, 34:611–626.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Graves CR: Antepartum fetal surveillance and timing of delivery in the pregnancy complicated by diabetes mellitus. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2007, 50:1007–1013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Devoe LD, Jones CR: Nonstress test: evidence-based use in high-risk pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2002, 45:986–992.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Golde SH, Montero M, Good-Anderson B, et al.: The role of nonstress tests, fetal biophysical profile, and contraction stress tests in the outpatient management of insulin-requiring diabetic pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984, 148:269–273.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Salvesen DR, Freeman J, Brudenell JM, Nicolaides KH: Prediction of fetal acidaemia in pregnancies complicated by maternal diabetes mellitus by biophysical profile scoring and fetal heart rate monitoring. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993, 100:227–233.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Williams KP, Farquharson DF, Bebbington M, et al.: Screening for fetal well-being in a high-risk pregnant population comparing the nonstress test with umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003, 188:1366–1371.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Wong SF, Chan FY, Cincotta RB, et al.: Use of umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry in the monitoring of pregnancy in women with pre-existing diabetes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2003, 43:302–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Gandhi JA, Zhang XY, Maidman JE: Fetal cardiac hypertrophy and cardiac function in diabetic pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995, 173:1132–1136.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Jaeggi ET, Fouron JC, Proulx F: Fetal cardiac performance in uncomplicated and well-controlled maternal type I diabetes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001, 17:311–315.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hatem MA, Zielinsky P, Hatem DM, et al.: Assessment of diastolic ventricular function in fetuses of diabetic mothers using tissue Doppler. Cardiol Young 2008, 18:297–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, 4911 Barnes-Jewish Plaza, 5th Floor Maternity Building, Campus Box 8064, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    Jennifer M. McNamara & Anthony O. Odibo

Authors
  1. Jennifer M. McNamara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anthony O. Odibo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer M. McNamara.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McNamara, J.M., Odibo, A.O. Sonographic Evaluation and the Pregnancy Complicated by Diabetes. Curr Diab Rep 11, 13–19 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-010-0158-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-010-0158-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation