Does Continuous Insulin Therapy Reduce Postoperative Supraventricular Tachycardia Incidence After Coronary Artery Bypass Operations in Diabetic Patients?

The connotation between perioperative glycemic control approach and sternal wound infection in individuals with diabetes mellitus experiencing cardiac surgery: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis investigation to measure the connotation between perioperative glycemic control (GC) approach and sternal wound infection (SWI) in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM) experiencing cardiac surgery (CS). A comprehensive literature inspection till February 2023 was applied and 2654 interrelated investigations were reviewed. The 12 chosen investigations enclosed 1564 individuals with DM and CS in the chosen investigations' starting point, 790 of them were using strict GC, and 774 were using moderate GC. Odds ratio (OR) in addition to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compute the value of the Connotation between the perioperative GC approach and SWI in individuals with DM experiencing CS by the dichotomous and continuous approaches and a fixed or random model. Strict GC had significantly lower SWI (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, -0.22-0.50, P < .001) compared with those with moderate GC in individuals with DM and CS. Strict GC had significantly lower SWI compared with those with moderate GC in individuals with DM and CS. However, caused of the small sample sizes of several chosen investigations for this meta-analysis, care must be exercised when dealing with its values.

Perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery

BACKGROUND

People with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk of postoperative complications. Data from randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses point to a potential benefit of intensive glycaemic control, targeting near-normal blood glucose, in people with hyperglycaemia (with and without diabetes mellitus) being submitted for surgical procedures. However, there is limited evidence concerning this question in people with diabetes mellitus undergoing surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of last search for all databases was 25 July 2022. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that prespecified different targets of perioperative glycaemic control for participants with diabetes (intensive versus conventional or standard care).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hypoglycaemic events and infectious complications. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular events, renal failure, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, health-related quality of life, socioeconomic effects, weight gain and mean blood glucose during the intervention. We summarised studies using meta-analysis with a random-effects model and calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using a 95% confidence interval (CI), or summarised outcomes with descriptive methods. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence (CoE).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of eight additional studies were added to the 12 included studies in the previous review leading to 20 RCTs included in this update. A total of 2670 participants were randomised, of which 1320 were allocated to the intensive treatment group and 1350 to the comparison group. The duration of the intervention varied from during surgery to five days postoperative. No included trial had an overall low risk of bias. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control (130/1263 (10.3%) and 117/1288 (9.1%) events, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; I2 = 0%; 2551 participants, 18 studies; high CoE). Hypoglycaemic events, both severe and non-severe, were mainly experienced in the intensive glycaemic control group. Intensive glycaemic control may slightly increase hypoglycaemic events compared to conventional glycaemic control (141/1184 (11.9%) and 41/1226 (3.3%) events, RR 3.36, 95% CI 1.69 to 6.67; I2 = 64%; 2410 participants, 17 studies; low CoE), as well as those considered severe events (37/927 (4.0%) and 6/969 (0.6%), RR 4.73, 95% CI 2.12 to 10.55; I2 = 0%; 1896 participants, 11 studies; low CoE). Intensive glycaemic control, compared to conventional glycaemic control, may result in little to no difference in the rate of infectious complications (160/1228 (13.0%) versus 224/1225 (18.2%) events, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.04; P = 0.09; I2 = 55%; 2453 participants, 18 studies; low CoE). Analysis of the predefined secondary outcomes revealed that intensive glycaemic control may result in a decrease in cardiovascular events compared to conventional glycaemic control (107/955 (11.2%) versus 125/978 (12.7%) events, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97; P = 0.03; I2 = 44%; 1454 participants, 12 studies; low CoE). Further, intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in renal failure events compared to conventional glycaemic control (137/1029 (13.3%) and 158/1057 (14.9%), RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; P = 0.56; I2 = 38%; 2086 participants, 14 studies; low CoE). We found little to no difference between intensive glycaemic control and conventional glycaemic control in length of ICU stay (MD -0.10 days, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.38; P = 0.69; I2 = 69%; 1687 participants, 11 studies; low CoE), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -1.79 to 0.21; P = 0.12; I2 = 77%; 1520 participants, 12 studies; very low CoE). Due to the differences within included studies, we did not pool data for the reduction of mean blood glucose. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in a mean lowering of blood glucose, ranging from 13.42 mg/dL to 91.30 mg/dL. One trial assessed health-related quality of life in 12/37 participants in the intensive glycaemic control group, and 13/44 participants in the conventional glycaemic control group; no important difference was shown in the measured physical health composite score of the short-form 12-item health survey (SF-12). One substudy reported a cost analysis of the population of an included study showing a higher total hospital cost in the conventional glycaemic control group, USD 42,052 (32,858 to 56,421) compared to the intensive glycaemic control group, USD 40,884 (31.216 to 49,992). It is important to point out that there is relevant heterogeneity between studies for several outcomes. We identified two ongoing trials. The results of these studies could add new information in future updates on this topic.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-certainty evidence indicates that perioperative intensive glycaemic control in people with diabetes undergoing surgery does not reduce all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control. There is low-certainty evidence that intensive glycaemic control may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, but cause little to no difference to the risk of infectious complications after the intervention, while it may increase the risk of hypoglycaemia. There are no clear differences between the groups for the other outcomes. There are uncertainties among the intensive and conventional groups regarding the optimal glycaemic algorithm and target blood glucose concentrations. In addition, we found poor data on health-related quality of life, socio-economic effects and weight gain. It is also relevant to underline the heterogeneity among studies regarding clinical outcomes and methodological approaches. More studies are needed that consider these factors and provide a higher quality of evidence, especially for outcomes such as hypoglycaemia and infectious complications.

Evidence-based guideline for the prevention and management of perioperative infection

BACKGROUND

We have updated the guideline for preventing and managing perioperative infection in China, given the global issues with antimicrobial resistance and the need to optimize antimicrobial usage and improve hospital infection control levels.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for prevention and management of perioperative infection, based on the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The strength of recommendations was graded and voted using the Delphi method and the nominal group technique. Revisions were made to the guidelines in response to feedback from the experts.

RESULTS

There were 17 questions prepared, for which 37 recommendations were made. According to the GRADE system, we evaluated the body of evidence for each clinical question. Based on the meta-analysis results, recommendations were graded using the Delphi method to generate useful information.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline provides evidence to perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis that increased the rational use of prophylactic antimicrobial use, with substantial improvement in the risk-benefit trade-off.

Glycemic Control Regimens in the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background

Increased risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) caused by hyperglycemia makes it necessary to follow perioperative glucose lowering strategies to reduce postoperative complications. A meta-analysis was conducted to understand the efficacy of intensive vs. conventional blood glucose lowering regimens on the incidence of SSIs and hypoglycemia from various randomized controlled studies (RCTs).

Materials and Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE and Central databases for RCTs that involved intensive (lower blood glucose target levels) vs. conventional (higher blood glucose target levels) strategies in patients undergoing various types of surgeries. The primary outcomes were SSIs or postoperative wound infections. Hypoglycemia and mortality outcomes were also studied. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR), and subgroup analyses were performed.

Results

A total of 29 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis with the information from 14,126 patients. A reduction in overall incidence of SSIs was found (RR 0.63, 0.50-0.80, p = 0.0002, I 2= 56%). Subgroup analyses showed that intensive insulin regimens decreased the risk of SSIs in patients with diabetes, in cardiac and abdominal surgical procedures, and during the intraoperative and postoperative phases of surgery. However, the risk of hypoglycemia and mortality was increased in the intensive group compared to the conventional group.

Conclusion

The results of the meta-analysis provide support for the use of intensive insulin regimens during the perioperative phase for decreasing the incidence of SSIs in certain patient populations and surgical categories.

Intensive glucose control during the perioperative period for diabetic patients undergoing surgery: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of intensive glucose control on diabetic patients undergoing surgery.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception to 13 December 2020.

SETTING

Operating room, postoperative recovery area and ward, up to 30 days after surgery.

PATIENTS

Diabetic patients undergoing surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

We used Review Manager 5.4 to pool the data with a random-effects model. The quality of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcomes were infectious complications, postoperative mortality, and hypoglycaemia. The secondary outcomes included atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, stroke, delirium, renal failure, postoperative mechanical ventilation time, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and hospital stay.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies involving 1582 participants were included. Compared with conventional glucose control, intensive glucose control was associated with a lower risk of infectious complications (risk ratio [RR], 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.63; low-quality evidence), atrial fibrillation (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42-0.71; high-quality evidence), and renal failure (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15-0.95; moderate-quality evidence), as well as a shorter length of stay in the ICU (mean difference (MD), -0.55 day; 95% CI, -1.05 to -0.05 days; very-low-quality evidence) and hospital (MD, -1.61 days; 95% CI, -2.78 to -0.44 days; very-low-quality evidence). However, intensive glucose control was associated with a higher risk of hypoglycaemia (RR, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.97-4.55; high-quality evidence). There were no significant differences in postoperative mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, delirium, or postoperative mechanical ventilation time.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive glucose control in diabetic patients is associated with a reduction in some adverse postoperative outcomes including infectious complications, but also appears to increase the risk of hypoglycaemia. Further well-designed studies may be needed to determine appropriate regimens to reduce hypoglycaemia incidence.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021226138.

Surgical Infection Society Research Priorities: A Narrative Review of Fourteen Years of Progress

Background: In 2006, the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) utilized a modified Delphi approach to define 15 specific priority research questions that remained unanswered in the field of surgical infections. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the scientific progress achieved during the ensuing period in answering each of the 15 research questions and to determine if additional research in these fields is warranted. Methods: For each of the questions, a literature search using the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) was performed by the Scientific Studies Committee of the SIS to identify studies that attempted to address each of the defined questions. This literature was analyzed and summarized. The data on each question were evaluated by a surgical infections expert to determine if the question was answered definitively or remains unanswered. Results: All 15 priority research questions were studied in the last 14 years; six questions (40%) were definitively answered and 9 questions (60%) remain unanswered in whole or in part, mainly because of the low quality of the studies available on this topic. Several of the 9 unanswered questions were deemed to remain research priorities in 2020 and warrant further investigation. These included, for example, the role of empiric antimicrobial agents in nosocomial infections, the use of inotropes/vasopressors versus volume loading to raise the mean arterial pressure, and the role of increased antimicrobial dosing and frequency in the obese patient. Conclusions: Several surgical infection-related research questions prioritized in 2006 remain unanswered. Further high-quality research is required to provide a definitive answer to many of these priority knowledge gaps. An updated research agenda by the SIS is warranted at this time to define research priorities for the future.

Association Between Perioperative Glycemic Control Strategy and Mortality in Patients With Diabetes Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To analyze association between different perioperative glycemic control strategies and postoperative outcomes in patients with diabetes undergoing cardiac surgery.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, Wanfang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and China Biology Medicine (CBM) databases were searched from inception to January 31, 2019. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies, and consensus was reached by discussion with a third researcher.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. We analyzed the effect of liberal (>180 mg/dl or 10.0 mmol/L), moderate (140-180 mg/dl or 7.8-10.0 mmol/L) and strict (<140 mg/dl or 7.8 mmol/L) glycemic control strategies in patients with diabetes undergoing cardiac surgery. The pooled results showed that strict glycemic control strategy was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of atrial fibrillation [OR = 0.48, 95%CI (0.32, 0.72), P < 0.001] and sternal wound infection [OR = 0.28, 95%CI (0.14, 0.54), P < 0.001], while there was no significant differences in postoperative mortality, stroke, and hypoglycemic episodes when compared with moderate control. In addition, there is no significant difference between moderate and liberal glycemic control strategies in postoperative mortality. However, moderate control was beneficial in reducing atrial fibrillation [OR = 0.28, 95%CI (0.13, 0.60), P = 0.001] compared with the liberal glycemic control strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed when compared with moderate glycemic control strategy in patients with diabetes undergoing cardiac surgery, maintained strict glycemic control was associated with lower risk of atrial fibrillation and sternal wound infection. No benefit was found with liberal glycemic control strategy, so it could be a poor glycemic control strategy.

Effects of perioperative tight glycemic control on postoperative outcomes: a meta-analysis

Background The optimal glycemic target during the perioperative period is still controversial. We aimed to explore the effects of tight glycemic control (TGC) on surgical mortality and morbidity. Methods PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched from January 1, 1946 to February 28, 2018. Appropriate trails comparing the postoperative outcomes (mortality, hypoglycemic events, acute kidney injury, etc.) between different levels of TGC and liberal glycemic control were identified. Quality assessments were performed with the Jadad scale combined with the allocation concealment evaluation. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were calculated using random effects models. Heterogeneity was detected by the I2 test. Results Twenty-six trials involving a total of 9315 patients were included in the final analysis. The overall mortality did not differ between tight and liberal glycemic control (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.78-1.07; I 2 = 20.1%). Among subgroup analyses, obvious decreased risks of mortality were found in the short-term mortality, non-diabetic conditions, cardiac surgery conditions and compared to the very liberal glycemic target. Furthermore, TGC was associated with decreased risks for acute kidney injury, sepsis, surgical site infection, atrial fibrillation and increased risks of hypoglycemia and severe hypoglycemia. Conclusions Compared to liberal control, perioperative TGC (the upper level of glucose goal ≤150 mg/dL) was associated with significant reduction of short-term mortality, cardic surgery mortality, non-diabetic patients mortality and some postoperative complications. In spite of increased risks of hypoglycemic events, perioperative TGC will benefits patients when it is done carefully.

Perioperative insulin therapy

Surgical patients commonly develop hyperglycemia secondary to the neuroendocrine stress response. Insulin treatment of hyperglycemia is required to overcome the perioperative catabolic state and acute insulin resistance. Besides its metabolic actions on glucose metabolism, insulin also displays nonmetabolic physiological effects. Preoperative glycemic assessment, maintenance of normoglycemia, and avoidance of glucose variability are paramount to optimize surgical outcomes. This review discusses the basic physiology and effects of insulin as well as practical issues pertaining to its management during the perioperative period.

Meta-analysis of lower perioperative blood glucose target levels for reduction of surgical-site infection

Background

There is a clear association between hyperglycaemia and surgical-site infection (SSI). Intensive glucose control may involve a risk of hypoglycaemia, which in turn results in potentially severe complications. A systematic review was undertaken of studies comparing intensive versus conventional glucose control protocols in relation to reduction of SSI and other outcomes, including hypoglycaemia, mortality and stroke.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and WHO databases from 1 January 1990 to 1 August 2015 were searched. Inclusion criteria were RCTs comparing intensive with conventional glucose control protocols, and reporting on the incidence of SSI. Meta-analyses were performed with a random-effects model, and meta-regression was subsequently undertaken. Targeted blood glucose levels, achieved blood glucose levels, and important adverse events were summarized.

Results

Fifteen RCTs were included. The summary estimate showed a significant benefit for an intensive compared with a conventional glucose control protocol in reducing SSI (odds ratio (OR) 0·43, 95 per cent c.i. 0·29 to 0·64; P &lt; 0·001). A significantly higher risk of hypoglycaemic events was found for the intensive group compared with the conventional group (OR 5·55, 2·58 to 11·96), with no increased risk of death (OR 0·74, 0·45 to 1·23) or stroke (OR 1·37, 0·26 to 7·20). These results were consistent both in patients with and those without diabetes, and in studies with moderately strict and very strict glucose control.

Conclusion

Stricter and lower blood glucose target levels of less than 150 mg/dl (8·3 mmol/l), using an intensive protocol in the perioperative period, reduce SSI with an inherent risk of hypoglycaemic events but without a significant increase in serious adverse events.

New WHO recommendations on intraoperative and postoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence-based global perspective

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are the most common health-care-associated infections in developing countries, but they also represent a substantial epidemiological burden in high-income countries. The prevention of these infections is complex and requires the integration of a range of preventive measures before, during, and after surgery. No international guidelines are available and inconsistencies in the interpretation of evidence and recommendations in national guidelines have been identified. Considering the prevention of SSIs as a priority for patient safety, WHO has developed evidence-based and expert consensus-based recommendations on the basis of an extensive list of preventive measures. We present in this Review 16 recommendations specific to the intraoperative and postoperative periods. The WHO recommendations were developed with a global perspective and they take into account the balance between benefits and harms, the evidence quality level, cost and resource use implications, and patient values and preferences.

Safety and efficacy of intensive intraoperative glycaemic control in cardiopulmonary bypass surgery: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of intraoperative intensive glycaemic treatment with modified glucose-insulin-potassium solution by hyperinsulinemic normoglycaemic clamp in cardiopulmonary bypass surgery patients. We hypothesised that the treatment would reduce infection rates in this group of patients.

METHODS

A prospective, randomised, double-blind trial was conducted in cardiopulmonary bypass surgery patients. A total of 199 adult patients (out of a planned 400) were randomly allocated to intensive or conventional treatment with target glucose levels of 4.4-8.3 mmol/l and < 13.8 mmol/l, respectively. The primary outcomes were clinical infection and cytokine levels, including interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-10. The secondary outcomes were morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

The study was terminated early because of safety concerns (hypoglycaemia). The clinical post-operative infection rate was 17% in the intensive group and 13% in the conventional group (P = 0.53). The proportion of patients with hypoglycaemia was significantly higher in the intensive group (23%) compared with the conventional group (3%) (P < 0.001). Morbidity and mortality rates were similar for both groups. Anaesthetic duration > 2 h (vs. ≤ 2 h), pre-operative IL-6 level > 15 pg/ml (vs. ≤ 15 pg/ml) and post-operative IL-6 level 56-110 pg/ml (vs. ≤ 55 pg/ml) were independent predictors for post-operative infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative intensive glycaemic treatment significantly increased the risk of hypoglycaemia, but its effect on post-operative infection by clinical assessment could not be determined. Anaesthetic duration, pre-operative and post-operative IL-6 levels can independently predict post-operative infection.

Short-term effects of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy in perioperative patients with diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Hyperglycemia is common and hard to control in surgical patients with diabetes. We retrospectively investigated short-term effects of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in perioperative patients with diabetes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Perioperative patients with diabetes discharged between January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2012 were included. Glucose control and postoperative outcomes were compared between the patients using CSII or non-CSII insulin therapy.

RESULTS

We identified 108 pairs of patients matched by propensity and surgical category who were using CSII therapy (CSII group) or non-CSII insulin therapy (control group). The CSII group had significantly lower fasting glucose levels (on the first postoperative day, 9.06±3.09 mmol/L vs. 11.05±4.19 mmol/L; P=0.003) and lower mean glucose levels (on the operation day, 9.93±2.65 mmol/L vs. 12.05±3.86 mmol/L; P=0.001). The CSII group also had a lower incidence of fever (on the first postoperative day, 30.4% vs. 53.2%; P=0.005). Furthermore, patients in the CSII group experienced significantly shorter postoperative intervals for suture removal (P=0.02) and hospital discharge (P=0.03). No significant difference in the total medical expenditure was observed between the two groups (P=0.47). We also made a comparison between the 30 pairs of patients who were using CSII or multiple daily insulin injection therapy but observed no significant difference between these two therapies in glucose control or postoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with non-CSII insulin therapy, even short-term implementation of CSII can improve the postoperative control of glucose, reduce the incidence of postoperative fever, and shorten the time for suture removal and discharge in surgical patients with diabetes.

Intensity of peri-operative glycemic control and postoperative outcomes in patients with diabetes: a meta-analysis

AIMS

Peri-operative hyperglycemia is a risk factor for postoperative morbidity and mortality. However, the role of specific glycemic targets in reducing this risk has not been defined, particularly among patients with diabetes. Thus, our objective was to conduct a meta-analysis relating distinct peri-operative glycemic targets and postoperative outcomes in patients with diabetes.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by two authors utilizing pre-specified terms: "diabetes mellitus" and "perioperative" and "mortality" and "blood glucose" or "strict glucose control" or "intensive insulin therapy" in PUBMED, CENTRAL and EMBASE. Glycemic control was considered strict when perioperative targets ranged between 100 and 150mg/dL (5.6-8.3mmol/l), moderate when the targets ranged between 150 and 200mg/dL 8.3-11.1mmol/l), and liberal when the target was >200mg/dL (11.1mmol/l). The data were combined utilizing the Dersimoan-Laird random-effects method. The primary endpoint was postoperative mortality with secondary endpoints of postoperative atrial fibrillation, wound infection, and stroke.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 760 studies, of which only 6 met inclusion criteria. When compared with a liberal target, pooled data showed that a moderate glycemic target was associated with reduced postoperative mortality (OR=0.48, 95% CI 0.24-0.76) and stroke (OR=0.61, 95% CI 0.38-0.98), but no differences in atrial fibrillation or wound infection were found. There were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes between moderate versus strict perioperative glycemic target.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled results suggest that in patients with diabetes, a moderate peri-operative glycemic target (150-200mg/dl [5.6-8.3mmol/l]) is associated with reduction in postoperative mortality and stroke compared with a liberal target (>200mg/dl [11.1mmol/l]), whereas no significant additional benefit was found with more strict glycemic control (<150mg/dl [5.6mmol/l]).

Management of hyperglycemia during the perioperative period

Hyperglycemia is frequently encountered in the inpatient setting and is distinctly associated with poor clinical outcomes. Recent literature suggests an association between stringent glycemic control and increased mortality, thus keeping optimal glycemic targets a relevant subject of debate. In the surgical population, hyperglycemia with or without diabetes mellitus may be unrecognized. Factors contributing to hyperglycemia in the hospital include critical illness, use of certain drugs, use of enteral or parenteral nutrition, and variability in oral or nutritional intake as can occur when patients are prepared for procedures or surgery. A sensible approach to managing hyperglycemia in this population includes preoperative recognition of diabetes mellitus and risks for inpatient hyperglycemia. Judicious control of glycemia during the pre-, intra-, and postoperative time periods with avoidance of hypoglycemia mandates the need for a strategy for patient management that extend to time of discharge. We review the consequences of uncontrolled perioperative hyperglycemia, discuss current clinical guidelines and recent controversies, and provide practical tools for glycemic control in the surgical population.