F E E de Vries1, S L Gans1,2, J S Solomkin3, B Allegranzi4, M Egger5, E P Dellinger6, M A Boermeester1. 1. Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Surgery, Tergooi Hospital, Hilversum, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 4. Infection Prevention and Control Global Unit, Service Delivery and Safety, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 5. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Berne, Berne, Switzerland. 6. Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Abstract
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 < 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.
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 < 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.
Authors: Adam Kline; Pramod Kamalapathy; Katharine Bruce; Kevin Raskin; Joseph Schwab; Santiago Lozano-Calderón Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Andra E Duncan; Daniel I Sessler; Hiroaki Sato; Tamaki Sato; Keisuke Nakazawa; George Carvalho; Roupen Hatzakorzian; Takumi Codere-Maruyama; Alaa Abd-Elsayed; Somnath Bose; Tamer Said; Maria Mendoza-Cuartas; Hyndhavi Chowdary; Edward J Mascha; Dongsheng Yang; A Marc Gillinov; Thomas Schricker Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Johannes Roth; Oliver Sommerfeld; Andreas L Birkenfeld; Christoph Sponholz; Ulrich A Müller; Christian von Loeffelholz Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2021-09-17 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Benjamin Wiesler; Jörn-Markus Gass; Carsten Th Viehl; Alexandra Müller; Jürg Metzger; Mark Hartel; Christian Nebiker; Robert Rosenberg; Raffaele Galli; Urs Zingg; Alex Ochsner; Lukas Eisner; Martina Pabst; Mathias Worni; Mark Henschel; Markus von Flüe; Markus Zuber; Marco von Strauss Und Torney Journal: Int J Surg Protoc Date: 2022-07-14