What year in the UK would pregnant women be offered routine glucose tests?

[Jenny65]

I am interested by the routine tests carried out and wonder whether I had gestational diabetes without knowing it.

I had my first baby in 1989 at 24 I went from 8 stone to 13 stone, people joked I was having twins or a very very big baby, I developed pre-eclampsia and my son was born weighing 6 pounds and 10 oz

My 2nd child was born in 1993, I didnt gain so much weight as last time, and didnt get preeclampsia but my baby weighed 10 pounds and 4 oz - My GP warned me subsequent babies would probably be bigger and as this was a difficult forceps birth she advised against more children

However, my 3rd child was born in 1995, I developed pre eclampsia and my baby was induced when I was 32 weeks - she weighed 3 pounds and 10 oz

All babies are well, (now all adults) but what I wonder is , I know there is a link with large babies and diabetes and there is also now a link with pre eclampsia and insulin resistance, so what I am wondering is, was I diabetic but didnt know, back then I mean, have I been a diabetic all these years and only found out now by chance or were glucose tests (blood tests not urine ones as I noted when my blood test showed 19.4 my urine sticks showed up as normal) so would I have been tested routinely or is this a later thing they test for?

 

[Robin]

I had my son in 1989. I remember urine glucose tests being done every clinic, and that when one of mine showed glucose in it, I was sent for a blood test, which was normal. I don’t think there were regular blood glucose tests throughout.

 

[Jenny65]

I had my son in 1989. I remember urine glucose tests being done every clinic, and that when one of mine showed glucose in it, I was sent for a blood test, which was normal. I don’t think there were regular blood glucose tests throughout.

Thanks Robin, I think that makes sense. I just wondered as having such a large baby (I am only 5ft 3) and then pre eclampsia with the other 2 plus me gaining 5 stone in pregnancy one, it made me wonder if my sugar levels were high, but they would have tested them as they monitored my weight and urine for protein etc so im sure they would have considered it possible. I had to have a horrible test to see if I could give birth naturally to my first as they said he was going to be very big but he was under 7 pounds (had a larger head than my 10 pound one though) my first came out so hungry, big wide eyes, and although full term he had the blood sugar of a premature baby. Oddly enough he is now 33 and has lost 5 stone after being told he had a fatty liver himself (not diabetic though, well not yet) he looks amazing now though and on his gym scales it says 15% fat and the metabolic age of a 25 year old, he has done so well, my scales tell me I am nearly 10 years older than I am !

 

[42istheanswer]

I had my first in 2006. Above 4kg so I was told that in subsequent pregnancies I would be tested for GD. Second pregnancy I had routine GTT at 28 weeks, which I "passed". I then had another GTT at 36 weeks due to repeat positive glucose in routine urine tests. I "passed" that too, second baby was 4kg.

So yes, I think if you were younger then you would have been routinely tested in your 3rd pregnancy.

It's now considered likely by my practice nurse that I did have mild gestational diabetes despite passing the GTT at 36 weeks.

(I also breastfed for a total of 6 years, which is supposed to reduce your chance of developing type 2 diabetes by about 5% per full year of breastfeeding... given GD gives a 90% increased chance of type 2, and given I've potentially inherited a genetic tendency from both sides, it seems that wasn't enough of a reduction 😉 )

 

[42istheanswer]

I don't know anything about whether there's a link between pre-eclampsia and diabetes though

 

[42istheanswer]

I would guess that even if you did have gestational diabetes, you weren't diabetic the whole time from pregnancy to diagnosis though. I think it would have been picked up sooner than that from progression. Usually gestational diabetes clears up after a pregnancy, then (for most) type 2 occurs at some later point.

 

[Jenny65]

I had my first in 2006. Above 4kg so I was told that in subsequent pregnancies I would be tested for GD. Second pregnancy I had routine GTT at 28 weeks, which I "passed". I then had another GTT at 36 weeks due to repeat positive glucose in routine urine tests. I "passed" that too, second baby was 4kg.

So yes, I think if you were younger then you would have been routinely tested in your 3rd pregnancy.

It's now considered likely by my practice nurse that I did have mild gestational diabetes despite passing the GTT at 36 weeks.

(I also breastfed for a total of 6 years, which is supposed to reduce your chance of developing type 2 diabetes by about 5% per full year of breastfeeding... given GD gives a 90% increased chance of type 2, and given I've potentially inherited a genetic tendency from both sides, it seems that wasn't enough of a reduction 😉 )

I didnt know that about breast feeding. I too breast fed for a long time (my best friend has a bably that sadly died from a cot death and I became a little ott about everything, including breast feeding. I breastfed my first for 2.5 years, my second for 1 year and my daughter for 8 months (had to stop when I had my gall bladder surgery and medication)

 

[Robin]

I had to have a horrible test to see if I could give birth naturally to my first as they said he was going to be very big but he was under 7 pounds

Was that the really uncomfortable one where they prod all the way round the inside of your pelvis? I had that with my first because the head wasn’t engaging, but I think it was just my son not wanting to get down to business. He was a week late and just under 7lb in the end.

 

[Jenny65]

Was that the really uncomfortable one where they prod all the way round the inside of your pelvis? I had that with my first because the head wasn’t engaging, but I think it was just my son not wanting to get down to business. He was a week late and just under 7lb in the end.

I cant actually describe what the consultant did to me, it makes me squeamish to think about it but it felt like he put his hand inside me and opened it up..labour started wihtin hours and he said it was probably because of this..grrr I was in hospital on bed rest at 39 weeks with preeclampsia at the time...he said he wanted to check i could have my son naturally they said he would have been 3 pounds heavier if i hadnt got unwell but when he came out weighing under 7 pounds i thought this is weird

 

[Jenny65]

My gran on my mums side had 4 children all 10 pounds or over, she was 5ft so it must be a genetic thing, oddly enough all of her children including my mum were short. My mum was 5ft1, her brothers were 5ft 6 and her younger sister was 5ft 3 (average but still you wouldnt think she started off as a 10 pound baby

My own son who started off as a 10 pound baby is now a 6ft 3 man, and my son who was 6 pounds 10 is 5ft 10, my daughter who was born at 3 pounds 10 oz is 5ft so one tall, one average and one little one. I must be a complete mix of genes

 

[PhoebeC]

I don't know anything about whether there's a link between pre-eclampsia and diabetes though

Thrte could be but I went insulin sensitive not resistant and I’m T1 so I’m not sure. I had pre-eclampsia at 34 weeks and she was big at 6lb4 but I never had high levels it was constant lows