Ahmed N Al-Niaimi1, Mostafa Ahmed2, Nikki Burish3, Saygin A Chackmakchy3, Songwon Seo4, Stephen Rose3, Ellen Hartenbach3, David M Kushner3, Nasia Safdar5, Laurel Rice3, Joseph Connor3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. Electronic address: alniaimi@wisc.edu. 2. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, San Antonio Military Medical Center, 3851 Roger Brook Drive, Fort Sam, Houston, TX 78234, USA. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics & Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison WI, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: SSI rates after gynecologic oncology surgery vary from 5% to 35%, but are up to 45% in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Strict postoperative glucose control by insulin infusion has been shown to lower morbidity, but not specifically SSI rates. Our project studied continuous postoperative insulin infusion for 24h for gynecologic oncology patients with DM and hyperglycemia with a target blood glucose of <139 mL/dL and a primary outcome of the protocol's impact on SSI rates. METHODS: We compared SSI rates retrospectively among three groups. Group 1 was composed of patients with DM whose blood glucose was controlled with intermittent subcutaneous insulin injections. Group 2 was composed of patients with DM and postoperative hyperglycemia whose blood glucose was controlled by insulin infusion. Group 3 was composed of patients with neither DM nor hyperglycemia. We controlled for all relevant factors associated with SSI. RESULTS: We studied a total of 372 patients. Patients in Group 2 had an SSI rate of 26/135 (19%), similar to patients in Group 3 whose rate was 19/89 (21%). Both were significantly lower than the SSI rate (43/148, 29%) of patients in Group 1. This reduction of 35% is significant (p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis showed an odd ratio = 0.5 (0.28-0.91) in reducing SSI rates after instituting this protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Initiating intensive glycemic control for 24h after gynecologic oncology surgery in patients with DM and postoperative hyperglycemia lowers the SSI rate by 35% (OR = 0.5) compared to patients receiving intermittent sliding scale insulin and to a rate equivalent to non-diabetics.
OBJECTIVE: SSI rates after gynecologic oncology surgery vary from 5% to 35%, but are up to 45% in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Strict postoperative glucose control by insulin infusion has been shown to lower morbidity, but not specifically SSI rates. Our project studied continuous postoperative insulin infusion for 24h for gynecologic oncology patients with DM and hyperglycemia with a target blood glucose of <139 mL/dL and a primary outcome of the protocol's impact on SSI rates. METHODS: We compared SSI rates retrospectively among three groups. Group 1 was composed of patients with DM whose blood glucose was controlled with intermittent subcutaneous insulin injections. Group 2 was composed of patients with DM and postoperative hyperglycemia whose blood glucose was controlled by insulin infusion. Group 3 was composed of patients with neither DM nor hyperglycemia. We controlled for all relevant factors associated with SSI. RESULTS: We studied a total of 372 patients. Patients in Group 2 had an SSI rate of 26/135 (19%), similar to patients in Group 3 whose rate was 19/89 (21%). Both were significantly lower than the SSI rate (43/148, 29%) of patients in Group 1. This reduction of 35% is significant (p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis showed an odd ratio = 0.5 (0.28-0.91) in reducing SSI rates after instituting this protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Initiating intensive glycemic control for 24h after gynecologic oncology surgery in patients with DM and postoperative hyperglycemia lowers the SSI rate by 35% (OR = 0.5) compared to patients receiving intermittent sliding scale insulin and to a rate equivalent to non-diabetics.
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: Judith Manniën; Marjo E E van Kasteren; Nico J Nagelkerke; Inge C Gyssens; Bart Jan Kullberg; Jan C Wille; Annette S de Boer Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2006-11-22 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Eli N Perencevich; Kenneth E Sands; Sara E Cosgrove; Edward Guadagnoli; Ellen Meara; Richard Platt Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: Kingsley O Abode-Iyamah; Hsiu-Yin Chiang; Nolan Winslow; Brian Park; Mario Zanaty; Brian J Dlouhy; Oliver E Flouty; Zachary D Rasmussen; Loreen A Herwaldt; Jeremy D Greenlee Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Jolyn S Taylor; Claire A Marten; Mark F Munsell; Charlotte C Sun; Kimberly A Potts; Jennifer K Burzawa; Alpa M Nick; Larissa A Meyer; Keith Myers; Diane C Bodurka; Thomas A Aloia; Charles F Levenback; David R Lairson; Kathleen M Schmeler Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-08-29 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Brooke A Schlappe; Jennifer J Mueller; Oliver Zivanovic; Ginger J Gardner; Kara Long Roche; Yukio Sonoda; Dennis S Chi; Roisin E O'Cearbhaill Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-05-21 Impact factor: 5.482