Abstract
Objective:
To assess the effect of maternal glucose administration on perceived fetal movements.
Study design:
This was a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial. Patients 28–41 weeks singleton gestation complaining of decreased fetal movements (DFM) were assigned to receive either 500 cc dextrose 5% (group A) or 500 cc normal saline (group B) intravenously. Primary outcome was number of fetal movements recorded during the following 30 min. Secondary outcomes included need for admission or induction of labor owing to persistent DFM. Maternal glucose levels were taken before and after intervention. A sample size of 50 patients was planned in order to detect a 30% increase in fetal movements in group A.
Results:
Between February 2011 and April 2013, 50 patients were recruited. Demographic characteristics were similar among groups. There was no difference in the number of fetal movements recorded (7±6 vs 8.8±6 movements/30 min, group A and B, respectively, P=0.39). Similar number of patients had persistent DFM that required admission (8 vs 10 patients, P=0.77, OR 1.4, confidence interval (CI) 0.38–5.3); of those admitted, similar number of patients had induction of labor (3 vs 6 patients, P=0.64, OR 0.4, CI 0.03–3.8). Maternal glucose levels were similar at recruitment (88±19 vs 83±15 mg dl−1 P=0.36) but were significantly higher in group A (161±37 vs 75±15 mg dl−1 P<0.0001) after intervention.
Conclusion:
In women with DFM, maternal glucose administration has no effect on perceived fetal movement and its clinical use is questionable.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $21.58 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Neldam S . Fetal movements as an indicator of fetal wellbeing. Lancet 1980; 1 (8180): 1222–1224.
Frøen JF . Management of decreased fetal movements. Semin Perinatol 2008; 32 (4): 307–311.
Heazell AE, Frøen JF . Methods of fetal movement counting and detection of fetal compromise. J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 28 (2): 147–154.
Reddy UM . Prediction and prevention of recurrent stillbirth. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110 (5): 1151–1164.
Sinha D, Sharma A, Nallaswamy V, Jayagopal N, Bhatti N . Obstetric outcome in women complaining of reduced fetal movements. J Obstet Gynaecol 2007; 27 (1): 41–43.
Sherer DM, Spong CY, Minior VK, Salafia CM . Decreased amniotic fluid volume at 32 weeks gestation is associated with decreased fetal movements. American Journal of Perinatology. Am J Perinatol 1996; 13 (8): 479–482.
Grant A, Elbourne D, Valentin L, Alexander S . Routine formal fetal movement counting and risk of antepartum late death in normally formed singletons. Lancet 1989; 2 (8659): 345–349.
Moore TR, Piacquadio K . A prospective evaluation of fetal movement screening to reduce the incidence of antepartum fetal death. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160 (5 Pt 1): 1075–1080.
Lalor JG, Fawole B, Alfirevic Z, Devane D . Biophysical profile for fetal assessment in high risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; CD000038.
Olesen AG, Svare JA . Decreased fetal movements: background, assessment, and clinical management. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004; 83 (9): 818–826.
Haws RA, Yakoob MY, Soomro T, Menezes EV, Darmstadt GL, Bhutta ZA . Reducing stillbirths: screening and monitoring during pregnancy and labour. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2009; 9 (Suppl 1): S5.
Mangessi L, Hofmeyr GJ . Fetal movement counting for assessment of fetal wellbeing. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (1): CD004909.
Hijazi ZR, East CE . Factors affecting maternal perception of fetal movement. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2009; 64 (7): 489–497.
Goldstein I, Makhoul IR, Nisman D, Tamir A, Escalante G, Itskovitz-Eldor J . Influence of maternal carbohydrate intake on fetal movements at 14 to 16 weeks of gestation. Prenat Diagn 2003; 23 (2): 95–97.
Bocking A, Adamson L, Cousin A, Campbell K, Carmichael L, Natale R et al. Effects of intravenous glucose injections on human fetal breathing movements and gross fetal body movements at 38 to 40 weeks' gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 142 (6 Pt 1): 606–611.
Divon MY, Zimmer EZ, Yeh SY, Vilenski A, Sarna Z, Paldi E et al. Effect of maternal intravenous glucose administration on fetal heart rate patterns and fetal breathing. Am J Perinatol 1985; 2 (4): 292–294.
Natale R, Richardson B, Patrick J . The effect of maternal hyperglycemia on gross body movements in human fetuses at 32-34 weeks' gestation. Early Hum Dev 1983; 8 (1): 13–20.
Nijhuis JG, Jongsma HW, Crijns IJ, de Valk IM, van der Velden JW . Effects of maternal glucose ingestion on human fetal breathing movements at weeks 24 and 28 of gestation. Early Hum Dev 1986; 13 (2): 183–188.
Harper MA, Meis PJ, Rose JC, Swain M, Burns J, Kardon B . Human fetal breathing response to intravenous glucose is directly related to gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157 (6): 1403–1405.
Edelberg SC, Dierker L, Kalhan S, Rosen MG . Decreased fetal movements with sustained maternal hyperglycemia using the glucose clamp technique. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 156 (5): 1101–1105.
Reece EA, Hagay Z . Fetal Doppler and behavioral responses during hypoglycemia induced with the insulin clamp technique in pregnant diabetic women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172 (1 Pt 1): 151–155.
Preboth M . ACOG guidelines on antepartum fetal surveillance. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Am Fam Physician 2000; 62 (5): 1184, 1187–1188.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Michaan, N., Baruch, Y., Topilsky, M. et al. The effect of glucose administration on perceived fetal movements in women with decreased fetal movement, a double-blinded placebo-controlled trial. J Perinatol 36, 598–600 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.52
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.52