Diabetes mellitus and perioperative outcomes: a scoping review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is frequently encountered in the perioperative period. DM may increase the risk of adverse perioperative outcomes owing to the potential vascular complications of DM. We conducted a scoping review to examine the association between DM and adverse perioperative outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search strategy of the published literature was built and applied in multiple databases. Observational studies examining the association between DM and adverse perioperative outcomes were included. Abstract screening determined full texts suitable for inclusion. Core information was extracted from each of the included studies including study design, definition of DM, type of DM, surgical specialties, and outcomes. Only primary outcomes are reported in this review. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 2363 records. Of those, 61 were included and 28 were excluded with justification. DM was mostly defined by either haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or blood glucose values (19 studies each). Other definitions included 'prior diagnosis' or use of medication. In 17 studies the definition was unclear. Type 2 DM was the most frequently studied subtype. Five of seven studies found DM was associated with mortality, 5/13 reported an association with 'complications' (as a composite measure), and 12/17 studies found DM was associated with 'infection'. Overall, 33/61 studies reported that DM was associated with the primary outcome measure. CONCLUSION: Diabetes mellitus is inconsistently defined in the published literature, which limits the potential for pooled analysis. Further research is necessary to determine which cohort of patients with DM are most at risk of adverse postoperative outcomes, and how control influences this association.

Multidisciplinary Team Decisions in Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Service and Quality Evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether decisions made by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) were implemented and review the MDT process to identify areas for improvement. METHODS: This was a retrospective service evaluation project. Consecutive cases of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from vascular surgery MDT meetings were reviewed. MDT outputs were extracted and compared with implemented clinical management obtained from the electronic health record (EHR) to determine concordance. Cases were re-reviewed to understand reasons why planned management was not implemented. RESULTS: From 42 MDT meetings, 106 patients were identified. Twenty four patients were discussed at two MDTs and four patients were discussed three times. Of the 106 patients, 91 (85.8%) were treated as planned, seven (6.6%) declined planned management and opted for conservative management, four (3.8%) patients died before treatment, and four (3.8%) had alternative management for individual reasons. Of the patients discussed multiple times, 15 (53.6%) needed review by a consultant anaesthetist or additional investigations. CONCLUSION: This service evaluation found a similar proportion of cases as in existing oncology literature where the MDT decision was not implemented. However, the natural history of AAA brings nuance to this finding. Facilitating patient preference is an important problem that will require future study. This evaluation resulted in local improvements to the MDT process for AAA.