GTT - can I refuse? Feel backed into a corner...(46 Posts)
Does anyone have any advice on the implications of refusing a GTT?
The background is that I'm pg with second baby, first all fine, no history of diabetes, no risk factors, normal weight, young etc.
So far with this pg all my urine and random blood glucose tests have been fine, but at my 20 week scan the baby's abdomen was 2 weeks ahead, which I was told could be a marker for gestational diabetes and I was referred for a GTT, which I passed without problems.
However I have now been told I'm booked in for further GTTs as the pregnancy progresses - next one at 28 weeks. This despite no further problems.
I REALLY don't want to have it - first I feel I'm being made to jump through hoops for absolutely no reason - surely if I don't have gestational diabetes then the baby's abdomen is nothing to do with this and it's just a fat baby - therefore why do I need to be retested? Also I absolutely hated the first test - had a horrible time getting across London feeling faint and sick, and I nearly vomited during the test, and it's a nightmare trying to organise it round my DS who is 2 and impossible to control for 3 boring hours while undergoing the bloods.
Could I refuse to go back unless there are further red flags? I am totally happy to be retested if there are further concerns - but I don't want to go back just for the sake of it. Has anyone refused in similar circumstances? What implications would it have if I did refuse?
You can refuse, yes. It may mean that they start to get stroppy about what they will "allow" you to do around going overdue/delivery, but if you are strong-willed enough to refuse the GTT I imagine you'd be more than capable of standing up for yourself there as well.
You could suggest to them that you go on a low-GI diet and start monitoring your blood sugar yourself anyway (which is all they'd get you to do to begin with if you did fail a GTT).
oh dear - do you think? If it's going to cause problems I'd guess rather just have the test and be in the clear - much as I would hate to retake it.
I think what's really pissing me off is that I am mystified as to why they want me to do it all over again.
I mean all my bloods have been normal, all my urine tests have been clear, the first GTT was fine - I just can't see what the argument is for retesting. Surely if I don't have diabetes, I don't have diabetes?
i seem to know lots of people who have been flagged up for similar non reasons. based on what they told me, sizes can be out just based on position of baby in the womb and unless there are any other indicators, none of my mates wanted any more tests run. it's not the most pleasant of tests is it?
pct probably got some target to meet or something [cynical]
75g of lucozade wouldn't be so bad - they made me drink a beaker of WARM glucose syrup the consistency of shampoo. Both women ahead of me in the queue vomited.
well I have another growth scan booked in - so perhaps that will show up useful info - interesting what you say about the positioning Morocco.
Thanks for all the responses btw.
They have certain protocols to follow. So, it might say that if you are measuring big for dates etc then they have to do x, y, z. I had this recently with my third pregnancy. I have high BMI and their protocols say that I had to have multiple random blood sugar tests done. I did the first few which were all fine and then refused to have anymore. They also wanted me to have extra growth scans for same reason. I did the first one and then refused more. They also wanted me to see a dietician - again I refused.
Friend was harressed into having repeated GTT and home monitoring when no signs of GD in bloods or urine, she is not a person who eats sugary/sweet things, in fact lives on pasta's and veg.
It made what should have been a easy 3rd pregnancy into a nightmare with 2 different consultants and appts every other week, after school care to sort for her DS2 as DS1 is working (finally).
She had a beautiful DD who is 8lb and 100% ok, all be it 3lb heavier than either of her brothers at birth so hopefully she will not have the same retarded growth they both have.
ilanak - did anything happen when you refused to go back for the scans etc?
I am just worried that refusing the test will have implications for the kind of birth I want or will just basically cause problems I haven't thought of down the line.
I refused my baby (ds2) was measuring 3-4wks ahead from 20wks. I was induced (due to OCD) at 36wks and he wass 7lb 13oz! so v big for that gestation.
oo blimey! Well baby was not that far ahead - abdomen about 2 weeks ahead and the rest normal - predicted birthweight was only 3.8kg at term (DS was 3.3).
I have another growth scan booked in anyway so I guess I will see what that shows - if it's shot up any further I would be happy to have another GTT it's the doing it for no reason that bugs me.
No, there were no reprocussions for me. However, I had an elective cesarian.
thanks for replies everyone - I think I will wait and see what transpires with the growth scan and then make a decision based on that - it will (hopefully!) give me more ammo if the scan's normal anyway.
I put my PND largely down to all this. I had a clear GTT at 28 weeks, which I submitted to quite calmly because I had a high BMI and a diabetic father. That was that, I thought, all fine.
At week 36 I measured a couple of weeks ahead for dates and that was it. Diabetic clinic, blood glucose monitoring (all readings were below 7) but I was still treated as diabetic although no one ever told it to me straight. I was told I would be induced at term as the growth scan showed a massive tummy on the baby and they couldn't possibly let me go past 40 weeks.
DD was born weighing 8lb 10oz. A good size, yes but hardly the whopper they had predicted.
Up till then my pregnancy had been calm and relatively easy. As soon as that mw got out her measuring tape it all went tits up and became very medicalised and I lost it totally.
My next pregnancy they can take a running jump at themselves. Not interested.
I have refused GTTs in two pregnancies with no repercussions regarding my birth choices. In both cases the hospital consultant wanted me to have a GTT because of my BMI and because of the weight of my previous babies. Apparently 8lb 8oz and 8lb 11oz (for a 42 weeker and a 41 weeker) were 'concerningly large' Much was made of the possible size of baby no 3.....Dd3 was 7lb 13oz!
That's useful info NL - I'm supposed to have a GTT in October, due to my BMI when weighed at first Midwife appt. I can't even face the Lucozade tests they keep wanting to inflict on me at MW's appointments.
I am overweight but put on very little weight in my first pregnancy. I had real problems with sickness/eating etc and really feel like fasting and then swallowing something I'd never drink normally is not something my system or baby will need at approx 24 weeks.
It's awful Leonie, isn't it? They even rushed dd to scbu at 2am because of it. Before I could blink she had one of those big needles in her hand. She was 20 hours old and had been fine all day. She was fine in scbu too and was released without any treatment. Except that they had insisted she was formula fed by that time and I was too upset and confused to argue.
Next time I will know better and trust my instincts more. Glad they admitted they were wrong with you anyway
After we had told the consultant to forget it and he had left the room we talked a little bit more about it to the midwife and she said that she thought it was a reasonable decision especially as once you've had the test you're on a 'diabetic pathway' whether you are or not! I have to say that confirmed my worst fears about the test and sounds very much like that was your experience Leonie.
Elkie - ask them for the evidence which shows that GTTs improve the outcome for babies. As far as I'm aware - there isn't any! I totally agree with you that starving that wolfing down solid sugar isn't something the pregnant woman would routinely do - so why should the test which replicates that be accepted as a reliable indicator?
Join the discussion
Please login first.