Risk of Major Complications After Perioperative Norepinephrine Infusion Through Peripheral Intravenous Lines in a Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Continuous infusions of norepinephrine to treat perioperative hypotension are typically administered through a central venous line rather than a peripheral venous catheter to avoid the risk of localized tissue necrosis in case of drug extravasation. There is limited literature to estimate the risk of skin necrosis when peripheral norepinephrine is used to counteract anesthesia-associated hypotension in elective surgical cases. This study aimed to estimate the rate of occurrence of drug-related adverse effects, including skin necrosis requiring surgical management when norepinephrine peripheral extravasation occurs. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the perioperative databases of the University Hospitals in Amsterdam and Utrecht, the Netherlands, to identify surgical patients who received norepinephrine peripheral intravenous infusions (20 µg/mL) between 2012 and 2016. The risk of drug-related adverse effects, including skin necrosis, was estimated. Particular care was taken to identify patients who needed plastic surgical or medical attention secondary to extravasation of dilute, peripheral norepinephrine. RESULTS: A total of 14,385 patients who received norepinephrine peripheral continuous infusions were identified. Drug extravasation was observed in 5 patients (5/14,385 = 0.035%). The 95% confidence interval (CI) for infusion extravasation was 0.011%-0.081%, indicating an estimated risk of 1-8 events per every 10,000 patients. There were zero related complications requiring surgical or medical intervention, resulting in a 95% CI of 0%-0.021% and indicating a risk of approximately 0-2 events per 10,000 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In the current database analysis, no significant association was found between the use of peripheral intravenous norepinephrine infusions and adverse events.

Comparison of perioperative glucose regulation in patients with type 1 vs type 2 diabetes mellitus: A retrospective cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Most perioperative diabetes mellitus (DM) guidelines do not distinguish between patients with type 1 (DM1) and type 2 (DM2). We hypothesised that similar treatment of DM1 and DM2 patients leads to differences in their perioperative glucose control. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study, of all DM patients undergoing surgery between May 2013 and November 2015 in a Dutch university hospital. We compared DM1 with DM2 patients, treated according to the same perioperative glucose protocol. Our primary outcome was the incidence of hyperglycaemia (glucose ≥10 mmol/L). Secondary outcomes were short-term glycaemic control (glucose before surgery and peak glucose perioperatively), long-term glycaemic control (HbA1c in 90 days before and after surgery) and the incidence of hypoglycaemia (glucose <4 mmol/L). RESULTS: We included 2259 patients with DM, 216 (10%) of which had DM1. The calculated incidences in our population were 7 out of 1000 patients with DM1 and 69 out of 1000 patients with DM2. Compared to those with DM2, patients with DM1 were younger, had a lower BMI, a higher glucose concentration before surgery, and a higher perioperative peak glucose concentration (11.0 [8.2-14.7] vs 9.4 [7.7-11.7], P < 0.001). The incidence of the primary endpoint, perioperative hyperglycaemia, was significantly higher in DM1 compared to DM2 patients (63% vs 43%, P < 0.001). Hypoglycaemia occurred more often in the DM1 population (7.1% vs 1.3%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Providing similar perioperative treatment to patients with DM1 and DM2 is associated with poorer short-term and long-term glycaemic control in DM1 throughout the perioperative period as well as an increased risk of hypoglycaemia.