Rationalization, Development, and Implementation of a Preoperative Diabetes Optimization Program Designed to Improve Perioperative Outcomes and Reduce Cost

Early Outcomes of Orthopedic Pre-surgical Patients Enrolled in an Intensive, Interprofessional Lifestyle Medicine Program to Optimize Health

Recently, lifestyle medicine (LSM) application has shown feasibility for musculoskeletal pain patients with co-existing lifestyle-related chronic diseases. This study describes early results of a LSM program for musculoskeletal patients with goals to optimize health prior to orthopedic surgery. Fifty-four patients (age: 61 ± 11 years; 39 [72%] females) completed the program from 3/8/22-12/1/23. Data included patient goals, utilization, goal attainment, and patient outcomes. Most patients (41/54 [76%]) enrolled with established surgical dates. Mean BMI was 43.2 ± 5.3 kg/m2, and 89% had ≥2 lifestyle-related chronic diseases. The majority reported impaired sleep (79%) and zero cumulative minutes of physical activity/week (57%). Mean program duration was 13 ± 8 weeks involving 5 ± 4 visits with members of the interprofessional team. Fifty-two (96%) patients successfully attained pre-program goals, and 49/54 (91%) met their surgical goal. Of the patients enrolled without surgical dates, 11/13 (85%) optimized their health and proceeded to surgery. Forty-two (78%) patients reported decreases in weight and BMI, averaging 11 ± 7 lbs and 1.8 ± 1.3 kg/m2, respectively. Rates of improvement in pain, PROMIS-10 physical and mental health, and PHQ-4 were 52%, 37%, 45%, and 47%, respectively. These data demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of a LSM program to address whole-person health optimization and enable orthopedic patients to improve lifestyle behaviors and proceed to orthopedic surgery.

American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Bannuru RR, Bruemmer D, Collins BS, Ekhlaspour L, Galindo RJ, Hilliard ME, Johnson EL, Khunti K, Lingvay I, Matfin G, McCoy RG, Perry ML, Pilla SJ, Polsky S, Prahalad P, Pratley RE, Segal AR, Seley JJ, Stanton RC, Gabbay RA. 16. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Strategies for Perioperative Optimization in Upper Extremity Fracture Care

Perioperative optimization in upper extremity fracture care must balance the need for timely treatment with the benefits of medical optimization. Care pathways directed at optimizing glycemic control, chronic anticoagulation, smoking history, nutrition, and frailty can reduce surgical risk in upper extremity fracture care. The development of multidisciplinary approaches that tie risk modification with risk stratification is needed.

Preoperative Evaluation in the 21st Century

This review aims to provide a conceptual framework for preoperative evaluation and to highlight the clinical evidence available to support perioperative decision-making.

Preoperative glucose in surgical oncology patient is not associated with postoperative outcomes after adjustment for frailty

BACKGROUND

Observational studies have shown associations between even small elevations in preoperative glucose and poorer outcomes, including increased length of stay (LOS) and higher mortality. This has led to calls for aggressive glycemic control in the preoperative period, including delay of treatment until glucose is reduced. However, it is not known whether there is a direct causal effect of blood glucose or whether adverse outcomes result from overall poorer health in patients with higher glucose.

METHODS

Analysis was performed using a retrospective database of patients aged 65 and older who underwent cancer surgery. The last measured preoperative glucose was the exposure variable. The primary outcome was extended LOS (>4 days). Secondary outcomes included mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), major postoperative complications during the admission period, and readmission within 30 days. The primary analysis was a logistic regression with prespecified covariates: age, sex, surgical service, and the Memorial Sloan Kettering-Frailty Index. In an exploratory analysis, lasso regression was used to select covariates from a list of 4160 candidate variables.

RESULTS

This study included 3796 patients with a median preoperative glucose of 104 mg/dL (interquartile range: 93-125). Higher preoperative glucose was univariately associated with increased odds of LOS > 4 days (odds ratio [OR]: 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22-1.73), with similar results for AKI, readmission, and mortality. Adjustment for confounders eliminated these associations for LOS (OR: 0.97 [95% CI: 0.80-1.18]) and attenuated all other glucose-outcome associations. Lasso regression gave comparable results to the primary analysis. Using the upper bound of the respective 95% confidence interval, we estimated that, at best, successful reduction of elevated preoperative glucose would reduce the risk of LOS > 4 days, 30-day major complication, and 30-day mortality by 4%, 0.5%, and 1.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Poor outcomes following cancer surgery in older adults with elevated glucose are most likely related to poorer overall health in these patients rather than a direct causal effect of glucose. Aggressive glycemic management in the preoperative period has very limited potential benefits and is therefore unwarranted.

16. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Evaluating the Utilization of a Perioperative Hyperglycemic Protocol: A Quality Improvement Project

PURPOSE

The purpose of this project to evaluate adherence to the perioperative hyperglycemic protocol among Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) at a large academic hospital. A secondary objective of this project is CRNAs' perceptions of barriers to point-of-care (POC) testing and the protocol.

DESIGN

A quality improvement project.

METHODS

Using Donabedian's conceptual framework, a Phase 1 retrospective chart analysis of 297 patients with diabetes undergoing noncardiac surgery before and after implementing POC testing for intraoperative glucose control was performed. Only patients with preoperative BG ≥ 180 mg/dL were included in this phase of the project, which involved a comparison of the protocol utilization before and after implementation of POC testing. Phase 2 included an assessment of CRNA's perceptions of the protocol.

FINDINGS

The final sample included 91 (37 preimplementation; 54 postimplementation) participants. There were no significant demographic differences between the groups. Overall, 52.7% of patients had intraoperative glucose checks, and only 16.5% received insulin. Preoperative BG levels decreased 11.4-points, and postoperative BG levels increased 20.4 points when comparing pre- and postimplementation groups. However, there were significant differences in postoperative glucose levels, pre- and postimplementation. The survey showed that the majority (65.5%) of CRNAs identified difficulty locating the protocol as the primary barrier to utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

Although all patients included in this project qualified for an intraoperative glucose check, findings revealed that only half of the patients had a glucose check and less than one fifth of the patients received insulin treatment, indicating poor adherence to the protocol. Thus, while implementing protocols is essential, utilization and adherence to the protocol are critical to improving patient outcomes. Recommendations for continued improvement include increasing protocol accessibility, staff training, compliance monitoring, and a more simple protocol structure.

Not So Sweet: Preoperative Diabetes Screening in the Total Joint Population

Clearly identifying patients with prediabetes and diabetes prior to surgery allows the clinical team to target interventions and reduce the risks of complications. Yet, protocols for preoperative diabetes screening vary. The purpose of this article is to present an evidence-based practice project examining the implementation of preoperative diabetes screening in an elective total joint patient population. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) Risk Test was used to assess diabetes risk and guide further testing. A total of 121 patients were screened. Of the sample, 55 were undiagnosed and at risk for diabetes according to the instrument. Twelve patients (21.8%) who screened at risk also revealed elevated fasting blood glucose levels. These patients were identified as potentially having prediabetes. The findings of this project support adoption of the ADA Risk Test in the preoperative setting, emphasize the feasibility of its integration in order to obtain valuable patient information, and assist with optimizing patients for surgery.

American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 16. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Is Uncontrolled Diabetes Mellitus Associated with Incidence of Complications After Posterior Instrumented Lumbar Fusion? A National Claims Database Analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous research has shown that diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with postoperative complications, including surgical site infections (SSIs). However, evidence for the association between diabetes control and postoperative complications in patients with DM is mixed. Prior studies relied on a single metric for defining uncontrolled DM, which does not account for glycemic variability, and it is unknown whether a more comprehensive assessment of diabetes control is associated with postoperative complications.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Is there a difference in the incidence of SSI after lumbar spine fusion in patients with uncontrolled DM, defined with a comprehensive assessment of glycemic control, compared with patients with controlled DM? (2) Is there a difference in the incidence of other select postoperative complications after lumbar spine fusion in patients with uncontrolled DM compared with patients with controlled DM? (3) Is there a difference in total reimbursements between these groups?

METHODS

We used the PearlDiver Patient Records Database, a national administrative claims database that provides access to the full continuum of perioperative care. We included 46,490 patients with DM undergoing posterior lumbar fusion with instrumentation. Patients were required to be continuously enrolled in the database for at least 1 year before and 90 days after the index procedure. Patients were divided into uncontrolled and controlled DM cohorts, as defined by ICD-9 diagnostic codes. These are based on a comprehensive assessment of glycemic control, including consideration of patient self-monitoring of blood glucose levels, hemoglobin A1c, and the presence/severity of diabetes-related comorbidities. The cohorts differed only by age, insurance type, and Elixhauser comorbidity score. The primary outcome was the incidence of SSI, divided into superficial and deep, within 90 days postoperatively. Secondary complications included the incidence of cerebrovascular events, acute kidney injury, pulmonary embolism, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, blood transfusion, and total reimbursements. These are the sum of reimbursements occurring within 90 days of surgery, which capture the total professional and facility cost burden to the health payer (such as the insurer). We constructed multivariable logistic regression models to adjust for the effects of age, insurance type, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

After adjusting for potentially confounding variables including age, insurance type, and comorbidities, we found that patients with uncontrolled DM had an odds ratio for deep SSI of 1.52 (95% confidence interval 1.16 to 1.95; p = 0.002). Similarly, patients with uncontrolled DM had adjusted odds ratios of 1.25 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.53; p = 0.03) for cerebrovascular events, 1.36 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.57; p < 0.001) for acute kidney injury, 1.55 (95% CI 1.16 to 2.04; p = 0.002) for pulmonary embolism, 1.30 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.54; p = 0.004) for pneumonia, 1.33 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.49; p < 0.001) for urinary tract infection, and 1.27 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.53; p = 0.02) for perioperative transfusion. Patients with uncontrolled DM had higher median 90-day total reimbursements than patients with controlled DM: USD 27,915 (interquartile range 5472 to 63,400) versus USD 10,263 (IQR 4101 to 49,748; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our findings encourage surgeons to take a full diabetic history beyond the HbA1c value, including any self-monitoring of glucose measurements, time in acceptable range for continuous glucose monitors, and/or consideration of the presence/severity of diabetes-related complications before lumbar spine fusion, as HbA1c does not fully capture glycemic control or variability. We emphasize that uncontrolled DM is a clinical, rather than laboratory, diagnosis. Comprehensive diabetes histories should be incorporated into existing preoperative diabetes care pathways and elective surgery could be deferred to improve glycemic control. Future development of an index measure incorporating multidimensional measures of diabetes control (such as continuous or self-glucose monitoring, diabetes-related comorbidities) is warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Perioperative Laboratory Markers as Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infection After Elective Hand Surgery

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to test the null hypothesis that there is no association between perioperative laboratory markers (serum albumin and hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c]) and incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) after soft tissue upper extremity surgery.

METHODS

We analyzed patient-level data from a large, insurance-based database containing supplemental laboratory results. We identified patients undergoing soft tissue upper extremity surgery (defined as carpal tunnel release, trigger finger release, wrist ganglion excision, cubital tunnel release, Dupuytren partial fasciectomy, or first dorsal compartment release) with serum albumin or HbA1c measurements within 90 days of surgery. We stratified patients into cohorts based on serum albumin concentration (<3.5 g/dL) and HbA1c (≥7%) thresholds. The primary outcome was incidence of SSI within 30 days following surgery. We constructed multivariable logistic regression models to adjust for patient demographics and baseline comorbidities using the Elixhauser comorbidity index.

RESULTS

Patients with hypoalbuminemia experienced an SSI incidence of 3.5% compared to 0.9% in patients with normal serum albumin. In multivariable analysis, the odds ratio of SSI with hypoalbuminemia was 3.32 (95% CI, 2.32-4.65). Patients with HbA1c ≥ 7% experienced an SSI incidence of 1.1% compared to 0.7% in patients with HbA1c < 7%. Multivariable analysis revealed odds ratios for SSI of 1.47 (95% CI, 1.02-2.11) in patients with HbA1c ≥ 7% compared to those with HbA1c < 7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypoalbuminemia and elevated HbA1c (in patients with diabetes) are risk factors for SSI within 30 days following soft tissue upper extremity surgery. Preoperative measurement of these laboratory markers may be a useful tool for risk stratification and identification of high-risk patients for nutritional or glycemic optimization.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic II.

Duke University Medical Center Perioperative Diabetes Management Program

Quality Improvement Success Stories are published by the American Diabetes Association in collaboration with the American College of Physicians and the National Diabetes Education Program. This series is intended to highlight best practices and strategies from programs and clinics that have successfully improved the quality of care for people with diabetes or related conditions. Each article in the series is reviewed and follows a standard format developed by the editors of Clinical Diabetes. The following article describes a project at an academic tertiary-care medical center aimed at identifying surgical patients with uncontrolled diabetes early in the preoperative process to improve their perioperative glycemic control and surgical outcomes.

15. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Tutorial: Development and Implementation of a Multidisciplinary Preoperative Nutrition Optimization Clinic

Although much is known about surgical risk, little evidence exists regarding how best to proactively address preoperative risk factors to improve surgical outcomes. Preoperative malnutrition is a widely prevalent and modifiable risk factor in patients undergoing surgery. Malnutrition prior to surgery portends significantly higher postoperative mortality, morbidity, length of stay, readmission rates, and hospital costs. Unfortunately, perioperative malnutrition is poorly screened for and remains largely unrecognized and undertreated—a true “silent epidemic” in surgical care. To better address this silent epidemic of surgical nutrition risk, here we describe the rationalization, development, and implementation of a multidisciplinary, registered dietitian–driven, preoperative nutrition optimization clinic program designed to improve perioperative outcomes and reduce cost. Implementation of this novel Perioperative Enhancement Team (POET) Nutrition Clinic required a collaboration among many disciplines, as well as an identified need for multidimensional scheduling template development, data tracking systems, dashboard development, and integration of electronic health records. A structured malnutrition risk score (Perioperative Nutrition Screen score) was developed and is being validated. A structured malnutrition pathway was developed and is under study. Finally, the POET Nutrition Clinic has established a novel role for a perioperative registered dietitian as the integral point person to deliver perioperative nutrition care. We hope this structured model of perioperative nutrition assessment and optimization will allow for wide implementation and generalizability in other centers worldwide to improve recognition and treatment of perioperative nutrition risk.

15. Diabetes Care in the Hospital: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.