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

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.

A clinical trial of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections in older adults with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and multiple daily injection (MDI) in older adults with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and to assess treatment satisfaction and quality of life. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Adults (n = 107) > or =60 years of age (mean age 66 years) with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (mean duration 16 years, BMI 32 kg/m(2), and HbA(1C) [A1C] 8.2%) were randomized to CSII (using insulin lispro) or MDI (using insulin lispro and insulin glargine) in a two-center, 12-month, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Efficacy was assessed with A1C, safety by frequency of hypoglycemia, and treatment satisfaction and quality of life with the Diabetes Quality of Life Clinical Trial Questionnaire and the 36-item short-form health survey, version 2. RESULTS: Forty-eight CSII subjects (91%) and 50 MDI subjects (93%) completed the study. Mean A1C fell by 1.7 +/- 1.0% in the CSII group to 6.6% and by 1.6 +/- 1.2% in the MDI group to 6.4%. The difference in A1C between treatment groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.20). Eighty-one percent of CSII subjects and 90% of MDI subjects experienced at least one episode of minor (self-treated) hypoglycemia (P = 0.17), and three CSII and six MDI subjects experienced severe hypoglycemia (P = 0.49). Rates of severe hypoglycemia were similarly low in the two groups (CSII 0.08 and MDI 0.23 events per person-year, P = 0.61). Weight gain did not differ between groups (P = 0.70). Treatment satisfaction improved significantly with both CSII and MDI (P < 0.0001), and the difference between groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: In older subjects with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, both CSII and MDI achieved excellent glycemic control with good safety and patient satisfaction.