OBJECTIVE: To present an analysis of glycemic control before and after introduction of a dedicated glucose management service (GMS) and outcomes within 1 year after liver transplantation (LT). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing LT, who were treated with insulin infusions after LT, before and after introduction of a GMS. Outcome measures within 1 year after LT included graft rejection, infection, prolonged ventilation (>48 hours on a ventilator), and graft survival. A multiple logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between GMS use and outcomes. RESULTS: This study consisted of 73 (35 GMS and 38 non-GMS) organ transplant recipients. The mean perioperative blood glucose level in the GMS group was lower than in the non-GMS group: unadjusted, by 31.1 mg/dL (P = .001); adjusted for pre-insulin drip glucose, age, sex, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and type of transplant, by 23.4 mg/dL (P = .020). There were 27 rejection episodes, 48 infections, 26 episodes of prolonged ventilation, and 64 patients with graft survival at 1 year. The infection rate was lower in the GMS group than in the non-GMS group: the unadjusted odds ratio was 0.28 (P = .015); when adjustments were made for pre-insulin drip glucose, pretransplant glucose, age, sex, MELD score, type of transplant, and diabetes status before transplantation, the odds ratio was 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.97; P = .045). No significant associations were noted between GMS group and rejection rates, prolonged ventilation, or graft survival. CONCLUSION: In this study of LT patients, a GMS was associated with improved glycemic control and reduced postoperative infections. Further studies investigating effects of strict glycemic control after LT are warranted.
OBJECTIVE: To present an analysis of glycemic control before and after introduction of a dedicated glucose management service (GMS) and outcomes within 1 year after liver transplantation (LT). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing LT, who were treated with insulin infusions after LT, before and after introduction of a GMS. Outcome measures within 1 year after LT included graft rejection, infection, prolonged ventilation (>48 hours on a ventilator), and graft survival. A multiple logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between GMS use and outcomes. RESULTS: This study consisted of 73 (35 GMS and 38 non-GMS) organ transplant recipients. The mean perioperative blood glucose level in the GMS group was lower than in the non-GMS group: unadjusted, by 31.1 mg/dL (P = .001); adjusted for pre-insulin drip glucose, age, sex, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and type of transplant, by 23.4 mg/dL (P = .020). There were 27 rejection episodes, 48 infections, 26 episodes of prolonged ventilation, and 64 patients with graft survival at 1 year. The infection rate was lower in the GMS group than in the non-GMS group: the unadjusted odds ratio was 0.28 (P = .015); when adjustments were made for pre-insulin drip glucose, pretransplant glucose, age, sex, MELD score, type of transplant, and diabetes status before transplantation, the odds ratio was 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.97; P = .045). No significant associations were noted between GMS group and rejection rates, prolonged ventilation, or graft survival. CONCLUSION: In this study of LT patients, a GMS was associated with improved glycemic control and reduced postoperative infections. Further studies investigating effects of strict glycemic control after LT are warranted.
Authors: G van den Berghe; P Wouters; F Weekers; C Verwaest; F Bruyninckx; M Schetz; D Vlasselaers; P Ferdinande; P Lauwers; R Bouillon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lowell R Schmeltz; Anthony J DeSantis; Kathleen Schmidt; Eileen O'Shea-Mahler; Connie Rhee; Stephen Brandt; Sara Peterson; Mark E Molitch Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2006 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Lowell R Schmeltz; Anthony J DeSantis; Vinaya Thiyagarajan; Kathleen Schmidt; Eileen O'Shea-Mahler; Diana Johnson; Joseph Henske; Patrick M McCarthy; Thomas G Gleason; Edwin C McGee; Mark E Molitch Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-01-17 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: M R Ganji; M Charkhchian; M Hakemi; G H Nederi; T Solymanian; F Saddadi; M Amini; I Najafi Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: John B Ammori; Matthew Sigakis; Michael J Englesbe; Michael O'Reilly; Shawn J Pelletier Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Luciana Vládia Carvalhêdo Fragoso; Márcio Flávio Moura de Araújo; Lidianne Fernandes da Silva Lobo; Dirk Schreen; Maria Lúcia Zanetti; Marta Maria Coelho Damasceno Journal: Einstein (Sao Paulo) Date: 2022-06-01
Authors: Sarah R Lieber; Ruth-Ann Lee; Yue Jiang; Claire Reuter; Randall Watkins; Kristen Szempruch; David A Gerber; Chirag S Desai; G Stephen DeCherney; A Sidney Barritt Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 3.456