Literature DB >> 21854260

Evaluation of hemoglobin A1c criteria to assess preoperative diabetes risk in cardiac surgery patients.

Roma Y Gianchandani1, Sima Saberi, Christina A Zrull, Preethi V Patil, Leena Jha, Susan C Kling-Colson, Kenia G Gandia, Elizabeth C DuBois, Cynthia D Plunkett, Tim W Bodnar, Rodica Pop-Busui.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Hemoglobin A1c (A1C) has recently been recommended for diagnosing diabetes mellitus and diabetes risk (prediabetes). Its performance compared with fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and 2-h post-glucose load (2HPG) is not well delineated. We compared the performance of A1C with that of FPG and 2HPG in preoperative cardiac surgery patients.
METHODS: Data from 92 patients without a history of diabetes were analyzed. Patients were classified with diabetes or prediabetes using established cutoffs for FPG, 2HPG, and A1C. Sensitivity and specificity of the new A1C criteria were evaluated.
RESULTS: All patients diagnosed with diabetes by A1C also had impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, or diabetes by other criteria. Using FPG as the reference, sensitivity and specificity of A1C for diagnosing diabetes were 50% and 96%, and using 2HPG as the reference they were 25% and 95%. Sensitivity and specificity for identifying prediabetes with FPG as the reference were 51% and 51%, respectively, and with 2HPG were 53% and 51%, respectively. One-third each of patients with prediabetes was identified using FPG, A1C, or both. When testing A1C and FPG concurrently, the sensitivity of diagnosing dysglycemia increased to 93% stipulating one or both tests are abnormal; specificity increased to 100% if both tests were required to be abnormal.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients before cardiac surgery, A1C criteria identified the largest number of patients with diabetes and prediabetes. For diagnosing prediabetes, A1C and FPG were discordant and characterized different groups of patients, therefore altering the distribution of diabetes risk. Simultaneous measurement of FGP and A1C may be a more sensitive and specific tool for identifying high-risk individuals with diabetes and prediabetes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21854260      PMCID: PMC3225060          DOI: 10.1089/dia.2011.0074

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther        ISSN: 1520-9156            Impact factor:   6.118


  20 in total

1.  Impact of recent increase in incidence on future diabetes burden: U.S., 2005-2050.

Authors:  K M Venkat Narayan; James P Boyle; Linda S Geiss; Jinan B Saaddine; Theodore J Thompson
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 19.112

2.  Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  David B Sacks; David E Bruns; David E Goldstein; Noel K Maclaren; Jay M McDonald; Marian Parrott
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 8.327

Review 3.  Glycated hemoglobin standardization--National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) perspective.

Authors:  Randie R Little
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.694

4.  International Expert Committee report on the role of the A1C assay in the diagnosis of diabetes.

Authors: 
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2009-06-05       Impact factor: 17.152

5.  Prevalence of diabetes and high risk for diabetes using A1C criteria in the U.S. population in 1988-2006.

Authors:  Catherine C Cowie; Keith F Rust; Danita D Byrd-Holt; Edward W Gregg; Earl S Ford; Linda S Geiss; Kathleen E Bainbridge; Judith E Fradkin
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2010-01-12       Impact factor: 19.112

6.  Differences in A1C by race and ethnicity among patients with impaired glucose tolerance in the Diabetes Prevention Program.

Authors:  William H Herman; Yong Ma; Gabriel Uwaifo; Steven Haffner; Steven E Kahn; Edward S Horton; John M Lachin; Maria G Montez; Tina Brenneman; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2007-05-29       Impact factor: 19.112

7.  Effect of aging on A1C levels in individuals without diabetes: evidence from the Framingham Offspring Study and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001-2004.

Authors:  Lydie N Pani; Leslie Korenda; James B Meigs; Cynthia Driver; Shadi Chamany; Caroline S Fox; Lisa Sullivan; Ralph B D'Agostino; David M Nathan
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2008-07-15       Impact factor: 17.152

8.  Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glucose values.

Authors:  David M Nathan; Judith Kuenen; Rikke Borg; Hui Zheng; David Schoenfeld; Robert J Heine
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2008-06-07       Impact factor: 19.112

9.  Comparison of A1C and fasting glucose criteria to diagnose diabetes among U.S. adults.

Authors:  April P Carson; Kristi Reynolds; Vivian A Fonseca; Paul Muntner
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2009-10-06       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  Full accounting of diabetes and pre-diabetes in the U.S. population in 1988-1994 and 2005-2006.

Authors:  Catherine C Cowie; Keith F Rust; Earl S Ford; Mark S Eberhardt; Danita D Byrd-Holt; Chaoyang Li; Desmond E Williams; Edward W Gregg; Kathleen E Bainbridge; Sharon H Saydah; Linda S Geiss
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2008-11-18       Impact factor: 17.152

View more
  1 in total

1.  Prevalence and Determinants of Glycemic Abnormalities in Cardiac Surgery Patients without a History of Diabetes: A Prospective Study.

Authors:  Roma Y Gianchandani; Sima Saberi; Preethi Patil; Richard L Prager; Rodica Pop-Busui
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2015-08-11       Impact factor: 5.555

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.