Would you like to be a member of our research panel? Join here - there's (nearly) always a great incentive offered for your views.

Would you / should I decline the glucose tolerance test (GTT)?

(71 Posts)

I don't normally hold with saying no to medical tests etc. but this pregnancy I have been advised to have the GTT because my dad has just been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. We know why he has diabetes - he has chronic pancreatitis. But this finding gives me a 'family history' so I've been sent an appointment letter.
My BMI is about 22 when pregnant (!), my last baby was very small for dates (5lb 1oz at 38 weeks, induced for lack of growth) and I've had no sugar in my urine so far. Oh, and my amniotic fluid looks normal (not excessive).
In these circumstances, would you stick your neck out and say no? I'm willing to frequently check my own urine for sugar (DH a GP so we can get some cheap NHS dip sticks) to make sure that i'm not endangering the baby in any way - DH says this is just as effective as the GTT.
I guess I feel like the test is unneccessary and, with my continued morning sickness, will definitely definitely have me throwing up all over the ob/gynae department since it involves fasting, drinking a sugary drink, then more fasting ... I give the sugary drink a maximum of 15 minutes before it reappears.
Anyhow, all this to ask - would I be reasonable vs irresponsible to say no to this test? Anyone got any experience of the GTT to share?

IneedacleanerIamalazyslattern Sat 17-Oct-09 12:19:48

I think it's up to you.
I have declined them in the past as I always have sugar in my urine when pregnant right up until the week I give birth, I have had so many GTT tests that towards the end I actually ended up declining them.

Don't think it would be irrisponsible as such, your dh is a medical professional and has given you his professional opinion on it.

Maybe decline it for now find out a bit more about the risks involved and the liklihood of you developing diabetes and if sugar does appear in your sample agree you will get one done asap.

SCARYspicemonster Sat 17-Oct-09 12:29:43

It was standard practice in my antenatal care and so I just had it. But if you know you're going to be sick and your DP is a GP and you're both keeping an eye on your glucose levels, I can't see that you would be putting yourself or your baby in any danger.

FWIW I didn't have the triple test because I didn't want to terminate unless the baby had a condition incompatible with life which would have been picked up at the anomaly scan.

Your body, your pregnancy

IneedacleanerIamalazyslattern Sat 17-Oct-09 12:34:33

Oh and pointless other bit of information one of the reasons I did agree to so many of them in the first place before I gave up was that it was not something that was routinely checked for when my mum was having us and she had huge babies and so did her mother so it was a distinct possibility that they had GD.

reikizen Sat 17-Oct-09 12:39:40

IUGR can also be as a result of diabetes, but I agree your family history is shaky to say the least! I think as long as you and partner feel happy without the test you can always have a GTT at a later date if things change (glucose in urine etc.) I agree we test too many women for diabetes, we are determined to find something wrong with them! wink

It's up to you, I'm sure something would crop up if you were to develop diabetes. I would say that the checking the urine for glucose is not reliable at all, I have gestational diabetes atm and have never had glucose in my urine. Would be better off getting a blood glucose monitor and doing the occasional fasting or random suger.

Weegle Sat 17-Oct-09 13:01:24

I'm not commenting on whether you should/shouldn't go for the test... but just wanted to say, I'm having a GTT in a couple of weeks and spoke to the obs and midwives at my appt this week about the sickness issue - I too am worried that early start+fasting+driving+sugary liquid drink spells disaster. As I said to them "how's it going to work when the sugar isn't going to be in my bloodstream, it's going to be in one of your cardboard vomit bowls?!" grin. I've been told to take double my dose of anti-emetics the night before and they will also give me some at the hospital before taking the drink. They also said you can be given a different sort of drink?? I didn't go in to it further because I figured I'd highlighted the potential problem, it's now for them to deal with - but they didn't seem bothered about the sickness affecting the actual test too much.

bigcar Sat 17-Oct-09 17:39:56

can't say whether you should go for the test, but as blackletterday said, I had gd and only had sugar in urine once, so it's not a reliable indicator. A blood glucose monitor would be the way to go.

LeonieBooCreepy Sat 17-Oct-09 18:16:45

Declined for no. 1. When they discovered she was big at 36w, they blamed me. Consultant said, verbatim: "Well if you'd taken the GTT we could've been doing something about this all along. now all we can do is damage control.

Fucking bitch that she was.

She sent me to diabetic midwife, who made me check my sugars for a week, 5x / day (fasting, after meals, and random). None were over 7. Most were nearer 4. I was discharged as non diabetic. I never got an apology.

They told me i'd have to feed DD1 formula because any big baby HAS to have formula because their sugar goes low. Hers never did.

I told them categorically to fuck off and don't even mention the word 'diabetes' to me when preg with DD2, even though i was 5 years older, 1.5 stone heavier, and both of my parents are now type2s.

I was again not diabetic. I had a meter, was quite capable of checking my sugar. DD2 was fine. They tested her sugar day 2 because she was trembly but it was 3.8, so they were happy.

Skip the GTT if you want - there are TONS of articles about it at pubmed saying how useless it is during pregnancy. Also Henci Goer writes a good article about how glucose tolerance is SUPPOSED to change, and all these GTTs just make patients out of women who don't need to be.

Also i have a friend who is type 2 and during her 3rd pregnancy they put her on insulin at 6 weeks after a GTT, and her baby couldnt keep his sugar up even though hers was well controlled, and spent a week in SBCU.

Sounds like 'dont mess with mother nature' if i ever heard it.

bubblesincambridge Mon 19-Oct-09 09:31:59

For god's sakes its only a blood test.

It'll do you and the baby no good whatsoever if you have diabetes and it goes undiagnosed, just because you couldn't be bothered to have a blood test!

4madboys Fri 02-Apr-10 17:44:17

bump, bit early to be asking about this as i am only 6 wks preg, but as i had a big baby last time 10lb 13oz they are wanting me to have the gtt at 26wks preg.

all my babies have been over 9lbs, yet none of the boys were fat, just long and big, they all are still big for their age, but my partner is tall, and they take after him, not me at only 5 2!

anyhow my bumps ALWAYS measures SMALL for dates, i have no signs of being diabetic, never had sugar in wee etc, no family history and nothing really to indicate that its an issue.

my midwife says she doesnt think i sufferer from gd, but its 'protocol' after a baby as big as ds4 was.

i delivered him easily in less than an hour in a birthing pool, my midwife just says my body is good at pregnancy and designed for childbirth as i birth easily, even big babies.

so i am wondering if i should/could refuse the test? i tend to get very low blood pressure in pregnancy which leads to me feeling dizzy etc, and starving myself for a blood test will pretty much guarantee that i faint or feel very ill.

ds4 was also tested after he was born and he showed NO signs of having any problems with his blood sugars, they just decided he was a big baby.

if anyone could tell me a bit more about the test? and if they think its worth having it done or if they have declined it, i would be very grateful

thanks

memorylapse Fri 02-Apr-10 17:55:37

tbh..I would have the GTT..if anything just to prove you dont have diabetes..undiagnosed gestational diabetes can have far reaching implications for your unborn baby so its better to be diagnosed..

Ive had 4 babies, all big, one was 9lb 7 at 38 weeks..never had diabetes..this pregnancy I was gobsmacked to be diagnosed with diabetes at 14 weeks pregnant..Ive been on insulin since 20 weeks.
I had hyperemesis and was in a state about the fasting..but it wasnt too bad..I got to the hospital at 9am..had my blood test straight away, then the drink..which wasnt too bad..not nice..but not too bad..and sat quietly for 2 hours..I was allowed to drink water though which helped stave the sick feeling off..when I got home I hurled my guts up but was glad I had the GTT as I had diabetes and it could have easily gone undetected..oh and just for the record..I dont always have sugar in my wee...a more accurate way of checking your sugars is to use a BM machine

4madboys Fri 02-Apr-10 19:54:30

yeah i guess its a kind of better safe than sorry thing? i just hate having to conform to 'protocol' and i also have shite veins so they always have a pita getting blood out of me!

its still early days so i shall talk to my midwife again etc and do a bit of research, my mum is also a nurse so i shall ask her, once i have told her i am pregnant that is!

Whelk Fri 02-Apr-10 20:04:28

I think that in the west we are actually very lucky to be offered such good medical care to help ensure a healthy pregnancy, mother and baby.

The great thing about this test is that if it is found to be positive you can do things to prevent it becoming a problem.

Of course this will include testing people who turn out not to have diabetes.

Its about a balance of risks. For me being able to find out whether there was a potential problem outweighed the discomfort and inconvenience of the fast, sugary drink (vomit faint for me!!) then fast!

vanitypear Fri 02-Apr-10 20:12:00

My consultant OB (at major London teaching hosp) didn't see the point of the GTT and preferred just one random blood test - he said this was just as accurate and didn't agree with giving a massive shot of sugar. So in that knowledge I'd quite happily decline if you are testing otherwise as you suggest.

MumtoF Fri 02-Apr-10 20:12:26

Undiagnosed diabetes is very dangerous - there are a lot of complications and dangers that many people aren't even aware of (everyone thinks it is just big babies) and in the US they are now introducing stricter perameters as they think diagnosis of GD is so important. If you prefer to do a couple of days of needlepricks before and after meals to confirm you don't have it then do that instead but if I were you I wouldn't not find out. The NHS avoid spending money where they can so if it wasn't a big deal they wouldn't test so many people. It was never picked up in my urine, just a GTT because of family history of type 2. It can be controlled with diet and to be honest following a GD diet will be good for you especially if you suffer from sickness as that is connected to blood sugars.

Shaz10 Fri 02-Apr-10 20:14:11

I have crap veins and blood tests are a nightmare. I did the GTT and it was ok. I was really dreading it but I found it a lot easier than some blood tests.

becksydee Sat 03-Apr-10 21:40:54

i have to say, if i ever have another baby i'll be declining the GTT. i had very well controlled (by diet) GD & all it ended up doing was labelling me as high risk for no good reason, causing me a lot if stress & upset in the last few weeks of my pregnancy.

what i would do however is 1hr post prandial blood glucose testing + fasting blood glucose first thing in the morning, keeping a diary of the readings, & if the numbers went out of control then i would ask to be referred to the diabetes nurse/endocrinologist asap. agree with all the posters above that urine testing is inaccurate (i never had glucose in my urine)

i think just declining it would be a bit irresponsible given your family history, uncontrolled GD can cause lots of problems, but monitoring your blood glucose regularly with a glucometer should be ok, assuming the readings are within the normal range of course.

ArthurPewty Sat 03-Apr-10 21:45:07

I declined it both times, despite a personal history of big babies, and both my parents being type 2 diabetics.

I had a glocometer and i KNEW i didnt have GD the first time despite a 10lb baby, so i told them not to even mention GD the second time. They did not, and I didnt have it the second time either.

Your body. I dont believe in GD as an entity anyway - my best mate took a shitload of insulin in the last part of her pregnancy prescribed, because her blood sugar was very high, but her baby ended up in NICU for a week anyway despite the insulin, was small, skinny, etc. Starved, basically, IMHO. He couldnt keep his sugar up and he was cold / trouble regulating body temp.

I'll stick with my big babies who come out perfectly healthy, thanks very much.

Henci Goer has a good article on why GD may not be real... google her name.

ChangeNameChangeLife Sat 03-Apr-10 21:48:02

GD is not about weight. Many women who have g diabetes are not overweight nor have a family history of diabetes. It is not an invasive test although I sympathise it will be difficult for you due to the sickness, I have experienced that too.

HOWEVER undiagnosed G diabetes is a terrible heaslth risk and one that can be easily averted. I would strongly recommend you take the test if they have asked. For a couple of hours of bad nausea (and believe me I do know how hidoeus it is) you could avert much more serious problems. I really recommend you rethink your position on this.

Rockbird Sat 03-Apr-10 21:49:09

Sorry for the thread hijack but I asked this ages ago and no one replied <sob>

I had very very late onset GD with DD two years ago (plus v overweight - still am and father type 2 so prime candidate). From 38.5 weeks onwards it was non stop intervention ending in induction which I was too uninformed to know that I could refuse. Anyway, next month we start ttc dc2 and what I would like to know is, having had a first pg with GD, do they leave you alone until the inevitable GTT at 26 weeks or will the diabetic clinic be on my case from day one?

Thanks, sorry again blush

ChangeNameChangeLife Sat 03-Apr-10 21:49:46

Oh and by the way my babies were normal to small sized so again you can not take that as an indicator. Only a GTT will tell. Honestly it is not worth the risk.

Mooncupflowethover Sat 03-Apr-10 21:52:15

Why wouldn't you? What if you DID have GD? I've had the test, it was no great shakes. Turned out I did have it.

dizzydixies Sat 03-Apr-10 21:55:28

Rockbird, in answer to yours am not sure as yet as I'm only 9+5 with DC4 but I had GD with DD3, late stage and managed through diet and went after. Am still overweight blush and was told at my booking in that the consultant might want me in sooner - will let you know when I do!

OP - I've had 3 large babies, DD1 was 10lb4 without GD although I had the test, DD2 was 11lb1oz without GD and when I was pregnant with DD3 I refused the test only to be talked round by the charming consultant - I'm glad I did as I had GD this time and was better treated in the diabetic clinic than the normal ANC. I know I'll have to have it again this time and frankly I don't have a problem with it if it effects the health or either me or the baby

MumNWLondon Sat 03-Apr-10 22:00:11

I declined GTT - my granddad had type 2 diabetes (he was v overweight though) and I have very mild pcos and hypothyroidism..... but I am not overweight at all. I had full GTT twice in first pregnancy and didn't have GD. Both my DC normal size (7 5 and 7 14)

I said I'd have a random non fasting gloucose test in this pregnancy and if it was abnormal or even borderline or close I'd do a full GTT - they were happy with this. The test came back very normal so they said it was very unlikely I had it and didn't recommend the full GTT. If they had really pushed (ie if I had any real risk factors I would have had the test).

Rockbird - at my hospital they'd be on to you from your booking in appointment - anyone with history of GD gets referred to diabetic clinic at start and full GTT in each trimester.

ChangeNameChangeLife Sat 03-Apr-10 22:03:22

Sorry but can I stress again that GD is not I repeat NOT about your weight. I saw several thin, some very thin women in the diabetes clinic. As I worry about my weight I asked the consultant did I have it because I might be overweight and she reassured me repeatedly that my weight had nothing to do with it. It is about your body reacting differently to sugars when pregnant.

Rockbird Sat 03-Apr-10 22:07:12

Oh bum. I'm hoping that your ID means you're on the other side of London to me! It's not so much the clinic that bothers me, just one particular nurse who was so horrible to me, she's bound to still be there hmm. I've resigned myself to having GD again, might as well prepare myself for it.

Thanks dizzydixies, would be interested to know what your experiences are.

dizzydixies Sat 03-Apr-10 22:10:29

if it helps when I went to the ANC on Tues I found that only one of the diabetic nurses is still there (2yrs later)

remember you should be dealing with the whole diabetic team and not just the midwife

becksydee Sat 03-Apr-10 22:10:48

don't know the answer to your question, rockbird, but just wanted to sympathise. mine was a late diagnosis too & i was put under huge pressure to have an induction, to the point of being bullied by my midwife & the diabetes midwife until i was sobbing inconsolably in front of them. luckily i had an amazing doula & other v well informed contacts & in the end i held out until 41+1 when i went into labour spontaneously. someone i know was coerced into a CS at 38 weeks & her baby was given formula because the midwives said her milk was 'no good' due to the GD

you have MN this time round, rockbird, you'll be fine

Rockbird Sat 03-Apr-10 22:14:16

That's the other thing bothering me becksy. The whole forcing you into formula feeding thing. DD was given formula, I wasn't encouraged to bf at all, in fact the mws took the mick at my uninformed attempts so DD never was bf. I'd like to think I could do it differently next time. With the full backing of MN wink

Sorry op...

dizzydixies Sat 03-Apr-10 22:14:57

to echo becksydee - I refused an induction and told them if I wanted to try a VBAC, the consultant agreed, in the end I had an elective but that was due to circumstances not including the GD

and I bf DD3 just the same as the other two - they checked her sugar levels once and that was it

LadyOfTheFlowers Sat 03-Apr-10 22:20:43

I did not have the test with DS1 - He was 9lb 9.

DS2 was 10lb 12 so I was advised to have the test with DS3.
DS3 was 8lb 12. I did not have GD.

I had the test this time with DC4 and again, I don't have it and baby is expected to be around the 8/9lbmark again.

DS2 appears to be a random one off. (He certainly is!!)

I have a needle phobia so was reluctant to have the test the last 2 times as it obviously involves 2 blood tests which for me is a complete nightmare but I had the tests done as I wanted to sort of 'prove' I didn't have GD. hmm

A tiny thought also stuck in my head 'what if you do develop it, have a huge baby and it could have been prevented/controlled with a simple test?'.

dizzydixies Sat 03-Apr-10 22:22:22

oh and DD3 was the smallest (with the GD) at only 9lb14 grin

becksydee Sat 03-Apr-10 22:23:54

oh no, that must have been really demoralising

you can do it differently next time round you'll know that colostrum is the best thing your baby can get to help it regulate its blood sugar, especially if you have GD, & you'll know to tell any mickey-taking midwives to either help or sod off!

<shakes pom poms>

ArthurPewty Sat 03-Apr-10 22:35:53

"Sorry but can I stress again that GD is not I repeat NOT about your weight."

Yet that's why they tried to pressurise me the first pregnancy. I was 13 stone when i got pregnant, only 5'1, and they decided i was too fat and therefore must be a diabetic. Especially when my 10lb baby was first discovered to have been big (approx 36 weeks). I was blamed, personally, for refusing the GTT, accused of causing the mess, and told that the only solution was 'damage control.'

I was also told i would never be able to breastfeed her, and that her sugar would plummet within minutes of birth.

I BFed her exclusively until solids, and carried on until she was 3.5 YEARS old, nary a drop of formula.

They said the same thing about DD2, that i'd have to formula feed her, despite me refusing the GTT. I did no such thing - she was BFed from 45 minutes post birth, and she's still at it today, 18 months old. They insisted her trembly arms and legs on day 2 in hospital must be low blood sugar, so they did a heel stick, but she was at 3.8, so they had to stop the whole diabetes bullshit.

I'm with Henci Goer. Since mom's weight, baby's weight, and nothing else about GD is predictable or indeed consistent from one 'case' to the next, i refuse to believe it is a true disease by definition. Sorry, but that's how i feel.

I can tell you this - its a surefire way to instantly over-medicalise your pregnancy, the minute GD is suggested/accused/diagnosed ... it is one intervention to the next from there on out.

ArthurPewty Sat 03-Apr-10 22:38:40

and i want to reiterate that I did not have GD. I had a glucometer at home - none of my sugars, fasting or postprandial, were ever > 6.7, for either pregnancy. I did not have any sort of diabetes, just big babies which i am very proud of.

TotalChaos Sat 03-Apr-10 22:48:59

Personally I would not want GTT done unless I had abnormal blood sugar tests results.

btw - ladies with "naff veins" - I have them too - may be worth getting them to try your wrists instead of inside your elbow.

Shaz10 Sun 04-Apr-10 09:35:40

I once had holes in my hands, elbow and wrist from some 12 year old Doogie Howser trying to get blood out of me! I begged them to call someone from the blood clinic, in the end they did and she got something in 30 seconds hmm

My BMI was 35 at booking appointment so I went straight into the system for GTT. Initially I didn't want to have it but the midwife told me that glucose in the urine is a very late sign of diabetes.

My two reasons for not wanting it were that I would treated as high risk during labour and end up with a lot of intervention- which I have been assured will not be the case if the test is negative and that I am self-employed and will have to loose money to go to it for nothing.

I asked my midwife why obese women were more at risk and she couldn't tell me but the consultant explained that it's because you are considered to be raising your blood glucose levels above normal on a regular basis because of overeating/poor diet and this is the cause of type 2 diabetes if it happens too often. So weight is a factor although not the only one.

I can see tht the reason they are giving you freudianslips are very weak and I had the same thoughts about sickness but mine is at 24wks and at 19 now I'm feeling nearly normal.

fernie3 Sun 04-Apr-10 10:28:30

I had the GTT in my last pregnancy and will have it again (didnt have it in the first two) I had it because my bmi was 31 at booking and my mother had type one diabetes. It is more borign than anything waiting around but seems like a good idea to just get it done and over just in case.

4madboys Sun 04-Apr-10 12:24:06

ooh lots more replies, thanks ladies

i am thinking that i may ask just for a regular blood sugar level check and if that shows any problems then i will have the gtt test.

they are wanting me to have the test purely because ds4 was such a large baby.

i already have to argue against intervention because i go overdue by more than two weeks, so this will just be another stick for the consultant to use.

i guess will see how the pregnancy goes and if i have any signs of gd then i would have the test, i just hate the fact that having a large baby means i HAVE to have it. ds4 was large at almost 11lb but not fat at all, just very long and at just 2yrs he is the height of a three year old, his blood sugar was tested at birth and was FINE. so there were no problems.

with regard to crap veins, quite often they end up having to get blood out of the back of my hand, lots of wiggling the needle in and out etc and i end up with huge bruises, i am not bothered as i am used to it, but dont see the point in having it done unnecessarily and as i have NO risk factors then it doesnt seem necessary but i shall see how my pregnancy progresses.

pamplem0usse Sun 04-Apr-10 12:37:15

I'm refusing the GTT.

Recent medical research has shown that a positive diagnoses of GD has been shown to have no different outcome re: baby and mother's health, versus not knowing.

I was marginally over the guidelines on BMI for having the test, but they b*lloxed up the fact that I was 13 weeks pregnant by the time they were doing the calculation and that I'm pretty heavily muscled (I'm 5"11 and pretty fit).

At 20 weeks into my pregnancy if I don't eat when I first get up I proceed to vomit everywhere. Seriously, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even be able to keep the lucozade down.

My midwife has failed to give me any explanation of what the test involves.

Oh and on my booking in bloods it took an hour and a half and five different medical staff to get my blood. Not a pleasant experience, especially given I'm afraid of needles!

LilyBolero Sun 04-Apr-10 12:50:08

With my current pregnancy (dc4) my mw wanted me to see a consultant, so made an appt at my booking in appointment. Her reasons were that my previous 3 babies were big (9lb12, 10lb0 and 10lb2). She thought the consultant would recommend a GTT, a late growth scan, and probably a hospital birth (although ds1 was born in hospital, dd and ds2 were both home births, I was at the time undecided about this one).

So I dutifully saw the consultant at 12 weeks. he said I was 'fantastically healthy', had had 3 consistently sized babies, born with no complications, would probably have a 4th around the same weight, and that he didn't want to do any more tests because there was no clinical indication that this was necessary. And he also said if he was advising me, he would go for another home birth! Which I am planning now.

Am currently 35 wks, baby measuring spot on for dates. I think the size of the previous babies is partly that I grow good sized babies, and partly that I have long pregnancies - they were 12, 14 and 8 days overdue, so had a bit of extra 'cooking' time.

4madboys Sun 04-Apr-10 13:18:42

lily you sound the same as me, i grow good size babies and also go overdue, 14days with ds1 an dds2, 18 or23 days (depending on which due date you took) for ds3 and 15days for ds4. i have laboured easily and had normal vaginal deliveries, ds4 was born in a birth pool, laboured for less than an hour and he was born without me having to push at all, no problems at all.

yay for seeing a reasonable consultant lily, i am down to see one, so hope that mine is as good as yours

LilyBolero Sun 04-Apr-10 17:00:21

4madboys - I was really relieved at how utterly reasonable he was! Dd and ds2 were both born at home with no pain relief or stitches, and weren't too big for me - and for me that's the crux of it - that my 'normal' is different from the next person's 'normal' and as such, growth scans/GTT etc may 'flag up' problems that aren't problems iyswim.

merlin8878 Tue 06-Apr-10 14:18:56

I'm 16 weeks with DC3 and have been booked to have a GTT at 26 weeks.

As I have a family history of diabetes and 'big' babies, my consultant thinks that in my previous pregnancies GD has been missed so she thinks it is a good idea for me to be tested.

I don't mind having to be tested, but I hate needles and blood!

I'm also worried about getting to the hospital without keeling over! I have to fast from 10pm the night before and be at hospital for 9am. I start going woozey if I get up and get DD1 ready for school without having something to eat or drink!

ladyluck12 Wed 27-Mar-13 10:00:44

Where's the actual evidence of complications with GD?
I asked my mw and she said basically its the 'big baby' thing.
It doesn't cause major or long term problems because it ends after the 9 months.

BabyHMummy Wed 27-Mar-13 14:19:07

I am in process of arguing with Amy hospital about GTT. I have insulin resistant blood so GTT holds a wealth of camera for me and baby. I have spoken to the diabetic clinic and there opinion was that as i monitor closely it should be ok as long as the second my sugar aren't normal i get my ass to hospital.

I would suggest you ring your hospital and ask to speak to the gestational diabetic nurse and ask them but as your dp is a Gp then can't see the issue buy ultimately the choice is yours

BabyHMummy Wed 27-Mar-13 14:20:39

Apologies on phone and autocorrret is a swine! Should say GTT holds a wealth of danger lol

Dd2 was still born at 37 weeks and everything pointed to undiagnosed GD, this was two years ago. Started testing blood sugar with finger prick at new hospital with dd3 at 12 weeks and was on insulin a week later. She was induced at 33+ weeks due to GD complications. I'm thankful she's alive.

I guess my dd didn't die though as it didn't exist and dd3 wasn't prem and in nicu either. She's 13 months now and I'm still breastfeeding.

Currently 6 weeks pregnant and starting testing at 12 weeks again as it's likely to happen again. I don't fit the GD profile either, every time I went in they would tell me that too!

FoxyRevenger Wed 27-Mar-13 16:21:37

After my friends son was stillborn due to undiagnosed GD I don't get why anyone would refuse something so simple but important?

BabyHMummy Wed 27-Mar-13 16:38:29

As i have posted in my case the rest is imo too dangerous due to a pre existing issue. The test itself could kill me by putting me in hypoglycamic shock. As i test regularly i will pick up if there start to be an issue.

It is down to individual choice based on being informed and sensible.

Quilty Wed 27-Mar-13 18:33:03

In answer to ladyluck's question about the risks of gestational diabetes, one of the main concerns is if baby gets too big there is a much higher risk of shoulder dystocia (shoulders getting stuck during delivery) which can be fatal for baby. This is why they like to monitor babies growth closely for women with GD.

slowblonde Wed 27-Mar-13 18:35:48

In fairness the GTT is just a glucose load (no different to a large bar of chocolate or bag of sweets) and does not pose any major risk to health no matter how insulin resistant you are. The higher the insulin resistance the more likely to have GDM and so a GTT is a very appropriate test.

SherbertStraws Wed 27-Mar-13 18:44:38

Are you aware that many people with low to normal body weight have diabetes. Don't be a fool and risk you and your baby's health by being so ill informed

BabyHMummy Wed 27-Mar-13 18:56:19

not ill informed. Have discussed at length with the diabetes clinic who agree that it is a high risk for me. My decision is well informed thank you

slowblonde Wed 27-Mar-13 19:04:04

As a specialist myself and having seen thousands of women undergo GTTs I am surprised you have been told the test itself could be a danger to your health. V strange indeed.

Essexgirlupnorth Wed 27-Mar-13 19:27:51

I will need to have one as my Dad is type 2 diabetic. Had an appointment with my consultant on Monday and he said that everyone is on a curve and they just have a cut off. He said given my family history and the fact I have PCOS to just been careful not to eat two much sugar anyway.
Is up to you if you have the test or not though.

MorganLeFey Wed 27-Mar-13 19:57:00

Agree with Slowblonde... as you've explained it so far the rationale doesn't really make sense, BabyHMummy? Does 'insulin resistant blood' mean you've been diagnosed as diabetic already..?

I pondered not having the mini-GTT (1 blood test after a bottle of lucozade - I suspect I've sugar loaded myself more than that with pudding smile ) because my random was normal & if I were booked in the department I had worked in I wouldn't have even been offered the mini-GTT as no additional risk factors...
However, where I'm booked offers it to everyone - so went ahead & it came back high - so went on to the full-GTT (more involved - 3 blood tests)!

midori1999 Wed 27-Mar-13 20:05:37

Cheese I am so sorry for the loss of your DD.

I agree that the risks of GD a very real and potentially fatal. The main risk is macrosomia, but there are also other risks such as placental abruption, IUGR, stillbirth and neonatal death. As well as serious and potentially incompatible with life congenital abnormalities if the GD starts early or diabetes was pre existing but undiagnosed.

BabyHMummy Wed 27-Mar-13 20:21:05

i have a condition called hyperinsulineamia its linked to pcos.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have discussed with a specialist and have made mine. Whether you or agree is not my concern. I am not "putting my baby at risk" as i test my sugar regularly thru the day and have agreed a plan with the specialist at my hospital.

slowblonde Wed 27-Mar-13 20:44:13

All I would say is that eating a large slice cake for example would then pose an equal risk to your health and you should be careful indeed!

Agree with midori regarding the other risks of undiagnosed / untreated GDM and for the vast majority of those in the high risk category an OGTT is an appropriate and very important test.

SherbertStraws Wed 27-Mar-13 20:51:10

My post was in reply to the OP not to you BabyH, I don't know why you thought it was to you. I get pissed off with people thinking you can only get diabetes, gestational or otherwise, if you are overweight. It is a myth perpetuated by the media.

ExpatAl Wed 27-Mar-13 20:52:52

Totally agree it's an important test and I think a lot of people don't want to take it because of the assumption that a postive result would reflect poorly on their lifestyles, which is the wrong way to look at it. A friend had a borderline test result so declined any futher testing and her ds really struggled when he was born. She hugely regrets not taking it seriously.

Teaandflapjacks Wed 27-Mar-13 21:08:45

Just thought I'd add, my BF had GD - she is as thin as a pin. It is a standard test in germany for everyone (where i live at the mo), they don't just offer to anyone who has a risk factor, and they strongly encourage everyone to have it here. But I was undecided until I saw a couple of posters and the devastating loss of still born births. I will certainly have the test now - thanks for helping me decided and sharing painful losses in the hope it helps others. My friend also mostly controlled with diet until final stages, and since before i was pg i mainly eat higher protein, higher green veg etc, low carb diet anyway, I would find that fairly easy to follow i think. I have read up on the reports and studies, and it is very much a mixed bag and conflicting messages. However, I would do anything to protect my little munchkin, and even if I have it, and it is a far, so what? Surely it is better to be over zealous and watch, than not. I have given up alcohol to zero etc too, and all the other stuff you are meant to follow- I just figure, it is 9 months... but I do respectfully see other peoples issues with this, and the conflicting pictures and evidence. I would think though, if you are overweight, then the other risk is a 26 fold higher risk of a larger baby, so if you add this with a GD risk - then maybe this is why they always look for it in people with high BMI? Good luck with everyones pregnancies!!!

Teaandflapjacks Wed 27-Mar-13 21:09:35

ooops I meant to say a faff - spell check!

Rororowmeboat Wed 27-Mar-13 21:30:54

I really don't understand why you would refuse!

glossyflower Thu 28-Mar-13 08:15:02

I must be honest I wondered why you'd refuse too until I read the whole post.
The rationale for you having the test is very weak. The fact your dad has type II diabetes is a little unreasonable as his was caused by pancreatic problems.
I would say unless you yourself have risk factors for diabetes, includiding other members of your family aside your dad that have diabetes, glucouria, overweight (yes skinny people can get diabetes but being overweight is a known modifiable risk factor), am

glossyflower Thu 28-Mar-13 08:19:16

... Oops posted too soon, fat fingers!
I was going to say if you are a smoker, have hypertension or hypercholestraemia etc.
Although its upto you if you have it, if it were me I'd probably have it but reluctantly so. At least you can be ruled out.
Plus I was always of the understanding that type II diabetes is not so much genetically linked as a type I. The reasonable explaination for many members of a family having type II is usually down to lifestyle choices.

SuffolkNWhat Thu 28-Mar-13 17:36:43

I'm due to have the GTT. DD was small, 6lb 7oz so it can only be due to my BMI (30 at booking but now 29 due to HG). Hacked off at being CLC as its scuppered my MLU dreams.

ExpatAl Thu 28-Mar-13 18:23:38

You can have small babies with GD. They are not all whoppers.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now