Comparison of intensive insulin therapy and conventional glucose management in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting

A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of Intensive Glucose Control in Critically Ill Adults

BACKGROUND

Whether intensive glucose control reduces mortality in critically ill patients remains uncertain. Patient-level meta-analyses can provide more precise estimates of treatment effects than are currently available.

METHODS

We pooled individual patient data from randomized trials investigating intensive glucose control in critically ill adults. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included survival to 90 days and time to live cessation of treatment with vasopressors or inotropes, mechanical ventilation, and newly commenced renal replacement. Severe hypoglycemia was a safety outcome.

RESULTS

Of 38 eligible trials (n=29,537 participants), 20 (n=14,171 participants) provided individual patient data including in-hospital mortality status for 7059 and 7049 participants allocated to intensive and conventional glucose control, respectively. Of these 1930 (27.3%) and 1891 (26.8%) individuals assigned to intensive and conventional control, respectively, died (risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.07; P=0.52; moderate certainty). There was no apparent heterogeneity of treatment effect on in-hospital mortality in any examined subgroups. Intensive glucose control increased the risk of severe hypoglycemia (risk ratio, 3.38; 95% CI, 2.99 to 3.83; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive glucose control was not associated with reduced mortality risk but increased the risk of severe hypoglycemia. We did not identify a subgroup of patients in whom intensive glucose control was beneficial. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; PROSPERO number CRD42021278869.).

Perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery

BACKGROUND

People with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk of postoperative complications. Data from randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses point to a potential benefit of intensive glycaemic control, targeting near-normal blood glucose, in people with hyperglycaemia (with and without diabetes mellitus) being submitted for surgical procedures. However, there is limited evidence concerning this question in people with diabetes mellitus undergoing surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of last search for all databases was 25 July 2022. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that prespecified different targets of perioperative glycaemic control for participants with diabetes (intensive versus conventional or standard care).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hypoglycaemic events and infectious complications. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular events, renal failure, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, health-related quality of life, socioeconomic effects, weight gain and mean blood glucose during the intervention. We summarised studies using meta-analysis with a random-effects model and calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using a 95% confidence interval (CI), or summarised outcomes with descriptive methods. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence (CoE).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of eight additional studies were added to the 12 included studies in the previous review leading to 20 RCTs included in this update. A total of 2670 participants were randomised, of which 1320 were allocated to the intensive treatment group and 1350 to the comparison group. The duration of the intervention varied from during surgery to five days postoperative. No included trial had an overall low risk of bias. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control (130/1263 (10.3%) and 117/1288 (9.1%) events, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; I2 = 0%; 2551 participants, 18 studies; high CoE). Hypoglycaemic events, both severe and non-severe, were mainly experienced in the intensive glycaemic control group. Intensive glycaemic control may slightly increase hypoglycaemic events compared to conventional glycaemic control (141/1184 (11.9%) and 41/1226 (3.3%) events, RR 3.36, 95% CI 1.69 to 6.67; I2 = 64%; 2410 participants, 17 studies; low CoE), as well as those considered severe events (37/927 (4.0%) and 6/969 (0.6%), RR 4.73, 95% CI 2.12 to 10.55; I2 = 0%; 1896 participants, 11 studies; low CoE). Intensive glycaemic control, compared to conventional glycaemic control, may result in little to no difference in the rate of infectious complications (160/1228 (13.0%) versus 224/1225 (18.2%) events, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.04; P = 0.09; I2 = 55%; 2453 participants, 18 studies; low CoE). Analysis of the predefined secondary outcomes revealed that intensive glycaemic control may result in a decrease in cardiovascular events compared to conventional glycaemic control (107/955 (11.2%) versus 125/978 (12.7%) events, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97; P = 0.03; I2 = 44%; 1454 participants, 12 studies; low CoE). Further, intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in renal failure events compared to conventional glycaemic control (137/1029 (13.3%) and 158/1057 (14.9%), RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; P = 0.56; I2 = 38%; 2086 participants, 14 studies; low CoE). We found little to no difference between intensive glycaemic control and conventional glycaemic control in length of ICU stay (MD -0.10 days, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.38; P = 0.69; I2 = 69%; 1687 participants, 11 studies; low CoE), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -1.79 to 0.21; P = 0.12; I2 = 77%; 1520 participants, 12 studies; very low CoE). Due to the differences within included studies, we did not pool data for the reduction of mean blood glucose. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in a mean lowering of blood glucose, ranging from 13.42 mg/dL to 91.30 mg/dL. One trial assessed health-related quality of life in 12/37 participants in the intensive glycaemic control group, and 13/44 participants in the conventional glycaemic control group; no important difference was shown in the measured physical health composite score of the short-form 12-item health survey (SF-12). One substudy reported a cost analysis of the population of an included study showing a higher total hospital cost in the conventional glycaemic control group, USD 42,052 (32,858 to 56,421) compared to the intensive glycaemic control group, USD 40,884 (31.216 to 49,992). It is important to point out that there is relevant heterogeneity between studies for several outcomes. We identified two ongoing trials. The results of these studies could add new information in future updates on this topic.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-certainty evidence indicates that perioperative intensive glycaemic control in people with diabetes undergoing surgery does not reduce all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control. There is low-certainty evidence that intensive glycaemic control may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, but cause little to no difference to the risk of infectious complications after the intervention, while it may increase the risk of hypoglycaemia. There are no clear differences between the groups for the other outcomes. There are uncertainties among the intensive and conventional groups regarding the optimal glycaemic algorithm and target blood glucose concentrations. In addition, we found poor data on health-related quality of life, socio-economic effects and weight gain. It is also relevant to underline the heterogeneity among studies regarding clinical outcomes and methodological approaches. More studies are needed that consider these factors and provide a higher quality of evidence, especially for outcomes such as hypoglycaemia and infectious complications.

Evidence-based guideline for the prevention and management of perioperative infection

BACKGROUND

We have updated the guideline for preventing and managing perioperative infection in China, given the global issues with antimicrobial resistance and the need to optimize antimicrobial usage and improve hospital infection control levels.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for prevention and management of perioperative infection, based on the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The strength of recommendations was graded and voted using the Delphi method and the nominal group technique. Revisions were made to the guidelines in response to feedback from the experts.

RESULTS

There were 17 questions prepared, for which 37 recommendations were made. According to the GRADE system, we evaluated the body of evidence for each clinical question. Based on the meta-analysis results, recommendations were graded using the Delphi method to generate useful information.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline provides evidence to perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis that increased the rational use of prophylactic antimicrobial use, with substantial improvement in the risk-benefit trade-off.

Strategies for post–cardiac surgery acute kidney injury prevention: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objects

Cardiac surgery is associated with acute kidney injury (AKI). However, the effects of various pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies for AKI prevention have not been thoroughly investigated, and their effectiveness in preventing AKI-related adverse outcomes has not been systematically evaluated.

Methods

Studies from PubMed, Embase, and Medline and registered trials from published through December 2021 that evaluated strategies for preventing post–cardiac surgery AKI were identified. The effectiveness of these strategies was assessed through a network meta-analysis (NMA). The secondary outcomes were prevention of dialysis-requiring AKI, mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS. The interventions were ranked using the P-score method. Confidence in the results of the NMA was assessed using the Confidence in NMA (CINeMA) framework.

Results

A total of 161 trials (involving 46,619 participants) and 53 strategies were identified. Eight pharmacological strategies {natriuretic peptides [odds ratio (OR): 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.19–0.47], nitroprusside [OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.12–0.68], fenoldopam [OR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.17–0.76], tolvaptan [OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.14–0.90], N-acetyl cysteine with carvedilol [OR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16–0.85], dexmedetomidine [OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.32–0.76;], levosimendan [OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.37–0.84], and erythropoietin [OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.41–0.94]} and one non-pharmacological intervention (remote ischemic preconditioning, OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.63–0.92) were associated with a lower incidence of post–cardiac surgery AKI with moderate to low confidence. Among these nine strategies, five (fenoldopam, erythropoietin, natriuretic peptides, levosimendan, and remote ischemic preconditioning) were associated with a shorter ICU LOS, and two (natriuretic peptides [OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.15–0.60] and levosimendan [OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.49–0.95]) were associated with a lower incidence of dialysis-requiring AKI. Natriuretic peptides were also associated with a lower risk of mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.29–0.86). The results of a sensitivity analysis support the robustness and effectiveness of natriuretic peptides and dexmedetomidine.

Conclusion

Nine potentially effective strategies were identified. Natriuretic peptide therapy was the most effective pharmacological strategy, and remote ischemic preconditioning was the only effective non-pharmacological strategy. Preventive strategies might also help prevent AKI-related adverse outcomes. Additional studies are required to explore the optimal dosages and protocols for potentially effective AKI prevention strategies.

Glycemic Control in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Different Perspective

Background

Hyperglycemia during coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) strongly predicts intra- and post-operative adverse consequences.

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the quality of glycemic management during CABG in an academic center regarding peripheral blood and coronary sinus values.

Methods

This prospective descriptive study encompassed 55 eligible patients undergoing on-pump CABG surgery in 2020. Peripheral blood glucose (BG) was measured four times, before anesthesia induction (T0), before cardiopulmonary bypass pump (CPB) (T1), during CPB (T2), at the end of CPB (T3), and at the end of surgery (T4). The surgeon also took a sample of the coronary sinus BG.

Results

The BG variations from T0 to T4 were statistically significant (P < 0.0001). The higher values detected in the ASA class III compared to ASA classes II were statistically significant at T1 (P = 0.01) and T2 (P = 0.025): patients with the higher BMI showed the higher levels of BG. In this regard, the differences were significant at T0 (P = 0.0001), T2 (P = 0.004), and T3 (P = 0.015). Regarding coronary sinus, the mean BG was 222.18 ± 75.74 mg/dL. It was also observed that the ASA class III (P = 0.001), longer duration of CPB (P = 0.021), higher IV fluid volume administrated during surgery (P = 0.023), higher BMI (P = 0.0001), and less urine volume at the end of surgery (P = 0.049) were significantly associated with the higher BG of the coronary sinus.

Conclusions

The existing glycemic management protocols on the CABG patients were acceptable in our hospital. However, the BG level of the coronary sinus was higher than the peripheral one.