Glycemic Control Reduces Infections in Post-Liver Transplant Patients: Results of a Prospective, Randomized Study.

Context: Previous studies have shown a relationship between glycemic control and posttransplant morbidity. Objective: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial in postliver transplant patients to evaluate intensive inpatient glycemic control and effects on outcomes to 1 year. Research Design and Intervention: A total of 164 patients [blood glucose (BG) >180 mg/dL] were randomized into 2 target groups: 82 with a BG of 140 mg/dL and 82 with a BG of 180 mg/dL. Continuous insulin infusions were initiated and then converted to subcutaneous basal bolus insulin therapy by our glucose management service. Results: The inpatient mean BG level was significantly different (140 group, 151.4 ± 19.5 mg/dL vs 180 group, 172.6 ± 27.9 mg/dL; P < 0.001). Any infection within 1 year occurred in 35 of the 82 patients (42.7%) in the 140 group and 54 of 82 (65.9%) in the 180 group (P = 0.0046). In a time-to-first infection analysis, being in the 140 group resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.54 (95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.83; P = 0.004); the difference between the 2 groups was statistically significant at 1 month (P = 0.008). The number with adjudicated transplant rejection was similar between the 2 groups [17 of 82 (20.7%) and 20 of 82 (24.3%) in the 140 and 180 groups, respectively; P = not significant]. Severe hypoglycemia (BG ≤40 mg/dL) occurred in 3 patients (2 in the 140 group and 1 in the 180 group). However, more patients had moderate hypoglycemia (BG, 41 to 70 mg/dL) in the 140 group [27 of 82 (32.9%) vs 10 of 82 (12.2%) in the 180 group; P = 0.003]. Insulin-related hypoglycemia was not associated with the incidence of severe adverse outcomes. Conclusions: Glycemic control of 140 mg/dL safely resulted in a reduced incidence of infection after transplantation compared with 180 mg/dL, but with an increase in moderate hypoglycemia.

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.