- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
High-Risk Pregnancy
If you have diabetes of any type come in
Do you know if your meter gives a plasma conversion or the whole blood reading? I didn't know there was a difference until recently I found out that if your meter converts to plasma you get higher numbers. I looked mine up and it does do the conversion, although not all one touch meters do. Does anyone know what doctors are referring to when they give you number goals? Plasma or whole blood?
This discussion has been closed.
Re: If you have diabetes of any type come in
DD1 Feb 2010
DD2 Sept 2011
DD1 Feb 2010
DD2 Sept 2011
To find your whole blood number you would divide by 1.15. I think normal fasting with the plasma is up to 110, 1 hr after meals is 161 and 2 hrs after meals is 138. At least that's what you get when you multiply 95, 140 and 120 by 1.15 which is what your meter does to your reading.
I asked the OB I work with who is here this morning about it and he said he had no idea some meters did this and he has been doing this forever. I am going to wager a guess that my doctor has no clue either.
ETA: No wonder I have been getting so many migraines. I usually get migraines and low blood sugar is one of my triggers. I thought I had been doing awesome with BS in the 80's this time with tight diet control (trying so hard to avoid insulin again as long as possible) but I've really been in the high 60's then. This also explains why when I tested in the 60's one time while I was pregnant with DD I was damn near blind I had crashed so low, I was really in the 50's.
Cycle 9: BFP 5-3-12:EDD 1-24-13 It's a girl! Born 12-27-12
DD1 Feb 2010
DD2 Sept 2011
Have you talked to your doctors about this? They may start you on oral meds before getting pregnant to help lower your sugars and you may be able to manage without insulin. I was on insulin with my last pregnancy and thought I was still having high numbers although in retrospect I really wasn't that high, and may have been able to have more time without a mass freakout about my 180's after breakfast that lead me to insulin in less that a week to start out it.
Just as an FYI, the goals for pregnancy are much lower than typical for a diabetic.
With my first, fastings ran 80-105. I was on NPH at bedtime, started at 10 units and ended at 24, I believe. Meals were consistantly in the 130's-150's, with NPH at breakfast (again, worked from 10 up to 24) and lunch (4 units of NPH). My dietitians adjusted my insulin weekly, but the long acting just didn't seem to work for my meals. Even running high for the entire 11 weeks of GD, my DD was born with perfect blood sugar, no health problems, and only weighted 6 lbs 11 oz.
This time around I'm working with an endo/dietitian team who are much more pro-active. I was diagnosed at 13 weeks, and at that point my fastings were running in the 110's. I was really concerned, but they told me that they would have to run 130's-140's for a while to cause any harm to the baby. They put me on NPH at night again, and that has kept fastings in the 80-95 range.
For meals this time I am on rapid acting Humalog, injected about 15 minutes before I eat. My numbers for meals are all over the place - anywhere from 90 to 150, mostly 120's-140's. They want me under 120 one hour from my first bite of food, so we're slowly upping the Humalog to try to get those back under control. I *think* my A1c's have all been around 5ish (I get one drawn every 4 weeks). Haven't had an u/s since 24 weeks, so I'm not sure where this LO is at for growth, but per the anatomy scan, the high numbers early on don't seem to have affected her development.
I would venture a guess, with fastings as high as yours, they would put you on insulin pretty quickly after you got pregnant. The goals with GD are (in general) under 90 for fasting, under 120/140 at one hour after meals (depending on your doctor) OR under 115/120 at two hours after meals. I'm not sure if they would differ for a pregnant Type II or not.
DD1 Feb 2010
DD2 Sept 2011
My A1c was 8.4 (I know, yikes!) when I conceived my son (Type 1 diabetic). I actually got low quite alot during the first trimester and my A1c went down to 6.5. Sounds like you're starting off better than I did.
One Touch Ultra Mini. Not all One Touch meters do it but the Ultras do.
Here is the info from the website:
Comparing the results
OneTouch? II, OneTouch? Basic?, and OneTouch? Profile? Meters are whole blood-calibrated meters. To compare a lab result with a whole blood-calibrated meter, you must first convert the lab result into its whole blood equivalent by dividing the result by 1.12. If your lab result is 112, you divide 112 by 1.12 which equals 100. In this example, the number 100 represents the "whole blood" equivalent of the lab's "plasma" glucose value. You would then compare your meter's whole blood result to 100. If your meter's result fell between 80 and 120 (+ 20%), it would be considered accurate. Try our Test Result Converter for an easy conversion between "plasma" and "whole blood" results.
OneTouch? Ultra?2, OneTouch? UltraSmart?, OneTouch? UltraMini?, OneTouch? Ultra?, OneTouch? FastTake?, and OneTouch? SureStep? Meters are plasma-calibrated meters. To compare a lab result with a plasma-calibrated meter, no conversion is necessary.
So I guess they only add 12% instead of 15%.