Objective: To compare the sonographic measurement of maternal subcutaneous and visceral adipose thickness between pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and patients with nondiabetic pregnancies. Methods: Adipose thickness was measured by transabdominal ultrasound in pregnant women attending our antenatal clinics at 24-28 weeks' gestation. All patients underwent a 75-g oral glucose challenge as a diagnostic test for GDM. Results: The study population comprised 56 women with a positive glucose challenge test and 112 nondiabetic pregnancies. Measurements of subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissues were converted into multiples of the median (MoM), adjusted for gestational age. The mean subcutaneous thickness MoM in patients with GDM was significantly higher compared to nondiabetic pregnancies (1.31 vs. 1.07; p = 0.011). Similarly, the mean visceral thickness MoM was higher in women with a positive oral glucose tolerance test compared to controls (1.61 vs. 1.06; p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that visceral adipose thickness, but not subcutaneous thickness, was significantly and independently associated with GDM (odds ratio 34.047, 95% confidence interval 9.489-122.166). Conclusions: Sonographic thickness of maternal visceral adipose tissue at 24-28 weeks' gestation was higher in women with GDM compared to nondiabetic pregnancies, independently from other known risk factors associated with GDM.

Keywords:
Gestational diabetes, Adipose tissue, Ultrasound, Glucose tolerance, Pregnancy
1.
World Health Organization (WHO): Obesity and Overweight, 2015. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/
2.
Hassan Y, Head V, Jacob D, Bachmann MO, Diu S, Ford J: Lifestyle interventions for weight loss in adults with severe obesity: a systematic review. Clin Obes 2016;6:395-403.
3.
Marchi J, Berg M, Dencker A, Olander EK, Begley C: Risks associated with obesity in pregnancy, for the mother and baby: a systematic review of reviews. Obes Rev 2015;16:621-638.
4.
Syngelaki A, Bredaki FE, Vaikousi E, Maiz N, Nicolaides RH: Body mass index at 11-13 weeks' gestation and pregnancy complications. Fetal Diagn Ther 2011;30:250-265.
5.
Torloni MR, Betrán AP, Horta BL, et al: Prepregnancy BMI and the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis. Obes Rev 2009;10:194-203.
6.
Foster MT, Pagliassotti MJ: Metabolic alterations following visceral fat removal and expansion. Adipocyte 2012;1:192-199.
7.
Ribeiro-Filho FF, Faria AN, Kohlmann O Jr, et al: Ultrasonography for the evaluation of visceral fat and cardiovascular risk. Hypertension 2001;38:713-717.
8.
Vlachos IS, Hatziioannou A, Perelas A, Perrea DN: Sonographic assessment of regional adiposity. Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:1545-1553.
9.
Neeland IJ, Turer AT, Ayers CR, et al: Dysfunctional adiposity and the risk of pre diabetes and type 2 diabetes in obese adults. JAMA 2012;308:1150-1159.
10.
Bray GA, Jablonski KA, Fujimoto WY, et al; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group: Relation of central adiposity and body mass index to the development of diabetes in the Diabetes Prevention Program. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:1212-1218.
11.
Bartha JL, Marín-Segura P, et al: Ultrasound evaluation of visceral fat and metabolic risk factors during early pregnancy. Obesity 2007;15:2233-2239.
12.
Martin AM, Berger H, Nisembaum R, Lausman AY, MacGarvie S, Ray JG: Abdominal visceral adiposity in the first trimester predicts glucose intolerance in later pregnancy. Diabetes Care 2009;32:1308-1310.
13.
Gur EB, Ince O, Turan GA, et al: Ultrasonographic visceral fat thickness in the first trimester can predict metabolic syndrome and gestational diabetes mellitus Endocrine 2014;47:478-484.
14.
De Souza LR, Kogan E, et al: Abdominal adiposity and insulin resistance in early pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2014;36:969-975.
15.
International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Consensus Panel: International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy. Diabetes Care 2010;33:676-682.
16.
Robinson HP, Fleming JE: A critical evaluation of sonar crown rump length measurements. Br J Obstet and Gynaecol 1975;82:702-710.
17.
Suzuki R, Watanabe S, Hirai Y, Akiyama K, Nishide T, Matsushima Y, Murayama H, Ohshima H, Shinomiya M, Shirai K, Saito Y, Yoshida S, Saisho H, Ohto M: Abdominal wall fat index, estimated by ultrasonography, for assessment of the ratio of visceral fat to subcutaneous fat in the abdomen. Am J Med 1993;95:309-314.
18.
Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-310.
19.
Nanda S, Savvidou M, Syngelaki A, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH: Prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus by maternal factors and biomarkers at 11-13 weeks. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:135-141.
20.
Syngelaki A, Pastides A, Kotecha R, Wright A, Akolekar R, Nicolaides RH: First-trimester screening for gestational diabetes mellitus based on maternal characteristics and history. Fetal Diagn Ther 2015;38:14-21.
21.
Nicolaides KH: A model for a new pyramid of prenatal care based on the 11 to 13 weeks' assessment. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:3-6.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.