Perioperative glycaemic control for diabetic patients undergoing surgery

dc.contributor.author
Buchleitner, AM
dc.contributor.author
Martínez Alonso, Montserrat
dc.contributor.author
Hernández García, Marta
dc.contributor.author
Solà, Ivan
dc.contributor.author
Mauricio Puente, Dídac
dc.date.accessioned
2024-12-05T22:36:58Z
dc.date.available
2024-12-05T22:36:58Z
dc.date.issued
2016-03-09T09:02:14Z
dc.date.issued
2016-03-09T09:02:14Z
dc.date.issued
2025-01-01
dc.date.issued
2012
dc.identifier
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007315.pub2.
dc.identifier
1469-493X
dc.identifier
http://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/56686
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/56686
dc.description.abstract
Background Patients with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk of postoperative complications. Data from randomised clinical trials and metaanalyses point to a potential benefit of intensive glycaemic control, targeting near-normal blood glucose, in patients with hyperglycaemia (with and without diabetes mellitus) being submitted to surgical procedures. However, there is limited evidence concerning this question in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing surgery. Objectives To assess the effects of perioperative glycaemic control for diabetic patients undergoing surgery. Search methods Trials were obtained from searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL and ISIS (all up to February 2012). Selection criteria We included randomised controlled clinical trials that prespecified different targets of perioperative glycaemic control (intensive versus conventional or standard care) Data collection and analysis Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We summarised studies using meta-analysis or descriptive methods. Main results Twelve trials randomised 694 diabetic participants to intensive control and 709 diabetic participants to conventional glycaemic control. The duration of the intervention ranged from just the duration of the surgical procedure up to 90 days. The number of participants ranged from 13 to 421, and the mean age was 64 years. Comparison of intensive with conventional glycaemic control demonstrated the following results for our predefined primary outcomes: analysis restricted to studies with low or unclear detection or attrition bias Perioperative glycaemic control for diabetic patients undergoing surgery (Review) 1 Copyright © 2012 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. for infectious complications showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.18), P = 0.11, 627 participants, eight trials, moderate quality of the evidence (grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation - (GRADE)). Evaluation of death from any cause revealed a RR of 1.19 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.59), P = 0.24, 1365 participants, 11 trials, high quality of the evidence (GRADE). On the basis of a posthoc analysis, there is the hypothesis that intensive glycaemic control may increase the risk of hypoglycaemic episodes if longer-term outcome measures are analysed (RR 6.92, 95% CI 2.04 to 23.41), P = 0.002, 724 patients, three trials, low quality of the evidence (GRADE). Analysis of our predefined secondary outcomes revealed the following findings: cardiovascular events had a RR of 1.03 (95% CI 0.21 to 5.13), P = 0.97, 682 participants, six trials, moderate quality of the evidence (GRADE) when comparing the two treatment modalities; and renal failure also did not show significant differences between intensive and regular glucose control (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.08), P = 0.09, 434 participants, two trials, moderate quality of the evidence (GRADE). We did not meta-analyse length of hospital stay and intensive care unit (ICU) stay due to substantial unexplained heterogeneity. Mean differences between intensive and regular glucose control groups ranged from -1.7 days to 2.1 days for ICU stay and between -8 days to 3.7 days for hospital stay (moderate quality of the evidence (GRADE)). One trial assessed health-related quality of life in 12/37 (32.4%) of participants in the intervention group and 13/44 (29.5%) of participants in the control group, and did not show an important difference (low quality of the evidence (GRADE)) in the measured physical health composite score of the short-form 12-item health survey (SF-12). None of the trials examined the effects of the interventions in terms of costs.
dc.description.abstract
This review was financially supported by a grant from Agencia d’avaluacio de teconologia i recerca mediques, Departament de Salut, Generalitat de Catalunya (Project 278/01/2008), Spain. Agencia de Calidad del Sistema Nacional de Salud, Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, Spain.
dc.language
eng
dc.publisher
John Wiley & Sons
dc.relation
Reproducció del document publicat a https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007315.pub2.
dc.relation
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012, núm. 9, CD007315
dc.rights
(c) The Cochrane Collaboration, John Wiley & Sons, 2012
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.title
Perioperative glycaemic control for diabetic patients undergoing surgery
dc.type
article
dc.type
publishedVersion


Ficheros en el ítem

FicherosTamañoFormatoVer

No hay ficheros asociados a este ítem.

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)