Blood Sugar Levels- HgbA1c vs. Current Sugar

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
The American Diabetes Association recommends that healthcare professionals use A1C point-of-care testing for timely decisions on therapy changes.1

More efficient than the lab

  • Results in 5 minutes
  • Small (5μL) blood sample
  • Portable – use in multiple exam rooms
  • Easy to use – minimal training required
  • No maintenance
Key features

  • 99% lab accuracy*
  • National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program certified
  • CLIA waived
  • Reimbursable
img-a1cnow-meter.jpg

img-test-kits.jpg
Bayer’s A1CNow+® is available in 10 or 20 count test kits.

See what real-time results can do for your patients.
Switch to Bayer’s A1CNow+® multi-test A1C system.





Learn more about Bayer's A1CNow+® multi-test A1C system
 
Should not the hemoglobin A1C test be added to the blood glucose reading to determine risk and appropriate therapy over the next few days?

Does an isolated high blood glucose reading really matter if the hgbA1c reading is reasonable? What is a reasonable hgb A1C? 8.5? 9? less than 8?

As you may recall normal (non diabetic) is around 5 and "optimal" number for superb sugar control is 6.5 or less. However, the vast majority of diabetics will be in the 7-8 range at least in my institution.
 
Hemoglobin A1C Levels Strongly Linked to Subsequent Mortality in Diabetes CME/CE

News Author: Laurie Barclay, MD
CME Author: Laurie Barclay, MD

Authors and Disclosures
CME/CE Released: 06/09/2008; Valid for credit through 06/09/2009
  • Print This
processing....







June 9, 2008 — Hemoglobin A1C (A1C) levels are strongly associated with subsequent mortality in both men and women without a previous diabetes diagnosis, according to the results of the largest study to date of A1C levels and subsequent mortality risk, reported in the June issue of Diabetes Care.
"Only a few prospective studies have examined the associations between A1C among subjects initially free of diabetes and subsequent risk of mortality," write Naomi Brewer, MMedSci, from the Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University in Wellington, New Zealand, and colleagues. "Each of these studies found associations with subsequent mortality. A1C levels have also been associated with mortality in patients with type 1 diabetes and nondiabetic chronic kidney disease and with incident cardiovascular disease."
The goal of this study was to evaluate the association between A1C concentration and mortality rate in a New Zealand population. From 1999 to 2001, participants were offered A1C testing during a Hepatitis Foundation screening campaign for hepatitis B. These participants were anonymously linked to the database for national mortality through December 31, 2004. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for age, ethnicity, smoking, and sex.
Of 47,904 participants, 71% were Mâori, 12% Pacific, 5% Asian, and 12% other. A1C was less than 4.0% in 142 participants, 4.0% to less than 5.0% (reference category) in 12,867, 5.0% to less than 6.0% in 30,222, 6.0% to less than 7.0% in 2669, and 7.0% or higher in 1596 participants. In addition, 408 participants had a previous diagnosis of diabetes.
During follow-up, there were 815 deaths. For participants without a previous diagnosis of diabetes, HRs for all-cause mortality steadily increased from the A1C reference category to the highest category (≥ 7.0%; HR, 2.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72 - 3.25). In addition, A1C was associated with mortality from circulatory, endocrine, nutritional, metabolic, and immune diseases as well as from other and unknown causes. Although mortality rate was also increased in participants with a previous diagnosis of diabetes, this was only partially explained by their increased A1C levels.
"This is the largest study to date of A1C levels and subsequent mortality risk," the study authors write. "It confirms previous findings that A1C levels are strongly associated with subsequent mortality in both men and women without a prior diabetes diagnosis."
Limitations of this study include lack of anthropometric data and information on other cardiovascular risk factors; short follow-up time; inability to exclude the possibility that diabetes at the time of the A1C test might have led to increased glucose levels; misclassification of specific causes of death; and participants being enrolled in an intensive population-based hepatitis B screening program, which may prevent generalizability of the findings to the overall population.
"The excess mortality risk was from a range of causes but was particularly strong for endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic and immunity disorders and for cardiovascular disease," the study authors conclude. "However, A1C levels only partially accounted for the excess mortality risk in participants with a previous diagnosis of diabetes."
The Health Research Council of New Zealand supported the Centre for Public Health Research and the Research Centre for Mâori Health and Development. The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 USC Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
 
Neurosurgery:
June 2006 - Volume 58 - Issue 6 - pp 1066-1073
doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000215887.59922.36
Clinical Studies: Cerebrovascular

Hyperglycemia Independently Increases the Risk of Perioperative Stroke, Myocardial Infarction, and Death after Carotid Endarterectomy

McGirt, Matthew J. M.D.; Woodworth, Graeme F. M.D.; Brooke, Benjamin S. M.D.; Coon, Alexander L. M.D.; Jain, Shamik B.S.; Buck, Donald B.S.; Huang, Judy M.D.; Clatterbuck, Richard E. M.D.; Tamargo, Rafael J. M.D.; Perler, Bruce A. M.D.





Abstract



OBJECTIVE: Clinical and experimental evidence suggests that hyperglycemia lowers the neuronal ischemic threshold, potentiates stroke volume in focal ischemia, and is associated with morbidity and mortality in the surgical critical care setting. It remains unknown whether hyperglycemia during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) predisposes patients to perioperative stroke and operative related morbidity and mortality.
METHODS: The clinical and radiological records of all patients undergoing CEA and operative day glucose measurement from 1994 to 2004 at an academic institution were reviewed and 30-day outcomes were assessed. The independent association of operative day glucose before CEA and perioperative morbidity and mortality were assessed via multivariate logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and one patients with a mean age of 72 ± 10 years (748 men, 453 women) underwent CEA (676 asymptomatic, 525 symptomatic). Overall, stroke occurred in 46 (3.8%) patients, transient ischemic attack occurred in 19 (1.6%), myocardial infarction occurred in 19 (1.6%), and death occurred in 17 (1.4%). Increasing operative day glucose was independently associated with perioperative stroke or transient ischemic attack (Odds ratio [OR], 1.005; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.01; P = 0.03), myocardial infarction (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.004-1.016; P = 0.017), and death (OR, 1.007; 95% CI, 1.00-1.015; P = 0.04). Patients with operative day glucose greater than 200 mg/dl were 2.8-fold, 4.3-fold, and 3.3-fold more likely to experience perioperative stroke or transient ischemic attack (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.37-5.67; P = 0.005), myocardial infarction (OR, 4.29; 95% CI, 1.28-14.4; P = 0.018), or death (OR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.07-10.1; P = 0.037), respectively. Median and interquartile range length of hospitalization was greater for patients with operative day glucose greater than 200 mg/dl (4 d [interquartile range, 2-15 d] versus 3 d [interquartile range, 2-7 d]; P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Independent of previous cardiac disease, diabetes, or other comorbidities, hyperglycemia at the time of CEA was associated with an increased risk of perioperative stroke or transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and death. Strict glucose control should be attempted before surgery to minimize the risk of morbidity and mortality after CEA.
 
Spine:
15 April 2008 - Volume 33 - Issue 8 - pp E254-E260
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816b88ca
Clinical Case Series

Diabetes and Perioperative Outcomes Following Cervical Fusion in Patients With Myelopathy

Cook, Chad PT, PhD, MBA; Tackett, Sean BS; Shah, Anand BS; Pietrobon, Ricardo MD, PhD, MBA; Browne, James MD; Viens, Nicholas MD; Richardson, William MD; Isaacs, Robert MD





Abstract



Study Design. Database study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample administrative data from 1988 through 2004.
Objective. To examine perioperative morbidity and mortality for patients diagnosed with myelopathy, with and without diabetes mellitus (DM) (and subclassifications) following cervical spinal fusion.
Summary of Background Data. DM has been associated with worse outcomes in a variety of orthopedic procedures including spinal surgery. Evidence that patients with DM have more complications following cervical fusion, specifically those treated for myelopathy, has been suggested within the literature but has been poorly explored.
Methods. Data from 37,732 patients within Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (1988-2004) with diagnostic codes specifying the presence of myelopathy and who underwent cervical fusion were included in the analysis. Patients were compared on the basis of the presence of DM, type of DM, and whether DM was controlled or uncontrolled. Bivariate statistical analyses compared postoperative complication rates while multivariate statistics were used to determine likelihood of complications with DM.
Results. Multivariate regression modeling outlined higher likelihoods of complications and hospital discharge variables with DM, particularly if it was diagnosed as uncontrolled disease. Fewer significant discrepancies in complications were noted in comparison of Type I versus Type II DM.
Conclusion. This nationally representative study of inpatients in the United States provides evidence that patients with DM who received cervical fusion secondary to myelopathy are associated with greater perioperative complications, nonroutine discharge, and increased total charges. Subanalyses suggest that uncontrolled DM is a significant associative factor in outcome.
 
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2005 May-Jun;6(3):200-4. Links

Republished in: J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2006 Mar;7(3 Suppl):S60-4, 59. What is the proper use of hemoglobin A1c monitoring in the elderly?

Alam T, Weintraub N, Weinreb J.
UCLA Multicampus Program in Geriatrics and Gerontology, Los Angeles, CA 90073, USA.
Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major health problem for the aging population. Glycemic control is fundamental to the management of diabetes, as glycemic levels are closely linked to development of diabetes-related complications. Measurement of the hemoglobin A1c (A1c) to assess chronic glycemic control is an integral component of diabetes care. Currently, there is no clear evidence that age alters the relationship between A1c and average blood glucose. The Diabetes Control and Complications trial and the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study are the 2 main studies that have provided evidence leading to the widespread recommendation of A1c monitoring. The American Diabetes Association recommends achieving an A1c level of 7% or lower. However, older diabetics represent a heterogeneous population ranging from frail nursing home residents to active community-dwelling elderly with variable life expectancies. One needs to look at the individual in order to best balance risk versus benefit associated with tight glycemic control. Benefits of intensive therapy in an effort to lower A1c must always be weighed against the greater risk of disabling and unpredictable hypoglycemia, as the geriatric population is less likely to benefit from reducing the risk of microvascular complications and more likely to suffer serious adverse effects from hypoglycemia.
 
Should not the hemoglobin A1C test be added to the blood glucose reading to determine risk and appropriate therapy over the next few days?

Does an isolated high blood glucose reading really matter if the hgbA1c reading is reasonable? What is a reasonable hgb A1C? 8.5? 9? less than 8?

As you may recall normal (non diabetic) is around 5 and "optimal" number for superb sugar control is 6.5 or less. However, the vast majority of diabetics will be in the 7-8 range at least in my institution.

This area of "tight glycemic control" needs more studies. Perhaps, a patient with a hgbA1c level of 7.0 or less (preoperatively) will do fine with a 150-180 range of perioperative glucose control?

The data is still being compiled and one has to wonder whether the extra tight blood sugar levels currently being used in some institutions (less than 140-150) is indeed required for all subgroups (both diabetic and non-diabetic).

In addition, some data raises the question of what % of adult patients are really "unknown" diabetics prior to hospitalization? Does this influence our current approach?

Hemoglobin A1C (A1C) levels are strongly associated with subsequent mortality in both men and women without a previous diabetes diagnosis, according to the results of the largest study to date of A1C levels and subsequent mortality risk, reported in the June issue of Diabetes Care.
 
1: Diabet Med. 2008 Mar;25(3):314-9. Epub 2008 Jan 14. Links

Impaired glucose regulation, elevated glycated haemoglobin and cardiac ischaemic events in vascular surgery patients.

Feringa HH, Vidakovic R, Karagiannis SE, Dunkelgrun M, Elhendy A, Boersma E, van Sambeek MR, Noordzij PG, Bax JJ, Poldermans D.
Department of Cardiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
AIMS: Cardiac morbidity and mortality is high in patients undergoing high-risk surgery. This study investigated whether impaired glucose regulation and elevated glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels are associated with increased cardiac ischaemic events in vascular surgery patients. METHODS: Baseline glucose and HbA(1c) were measured in 401 vascular surgery patients. Glucose < 5.6 mmol/l was defined as normal. Fasting glucose 5.6-7.0 mmol/l or random glucose 5.6-11.1 mmol/l was defined as impaired glucose regulation. Fasting glucose > or = 7.0 or random glucose > or = 11.1 mmol/l was defined as diabetes. Perioperative ischaemia was identified by 72-h Holter monitoring. Troponin T was measured on days 1, 3 and 7 and before discharge. Cardiac death or Q-wave myocardial infarction was noted at 30-day and longer-term follow-up (mean 2.5 years). RESULTS: Mean (+/- sd) level for glucose was 6.3 +/- 2.3 mmol/l and for HbA(1c) 6.2 +/- 1.3%. Ischaemia, troponin release, 30-day and long-term cardiac events occurred in 27, 22, 6 and 17%, respectively. Using subjects with normal glucose levels as the reference category, multivariate analysis revealed that patients with impaired glucose regulation and diabetes were at 2.2- and 2.6-fold increased risk of ischaemia, 3.8- and 3.9-fold for troponin release, 4.3- and 4.8-fold for 30-day cardiac events and 1.9- and 3.1-fold for long-term cardiac events. Patients with HbA(1c) > 7.0% (n = 63, 16%) were at 2.8-fold, 2.1-fold, 5.3-fold and 5.6-fold increased risk for ischaemia, troponin release, 30-day and long-term cardiac events, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Impaired glucose regulation and elevated HbA(1c) are risk factors for cardiac ischaemic events in vascular surgery patients.
 
1: Am Heart J. 2009 May;157(5):919-25. Links

Preoperative oral glucose tolerance testing in vascular surgery patients: long-term cardiovascular outcome.

van Kuijk JP, Dunkelgrun M, Schreiner F, Flu WJ, Galal W, van Domburg RT, Hoeks SE, van Gestel YR, Bax JJ, Poldermans D.
Department of Anesthesiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is an important risk factor in vascular surgery patients, influencing late outcome. Screening for diabetes is recommended by fasting glucose measurement. Oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT) could enhance the detection of patients with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and DM. AIM: To assess the additional value of OGTT on top of fasting glucose levels in vascular surgery patients to predict long-term cardiovascular outcome. METHODS: A total of 404 patients without signs or histories of IGT (plasma glucose 7.8-11.1 mmol/L) or DM (glucose >/=11.1 mmol/L) were prospectively included and subjected to OGTT. Cardiac risk factors were noted. Primary outcome was the occurrence of late cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular death, angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention/coronary artery bypass grafting, or cerebral vascular accident/transient ischemic attack), and secondary outcome included all-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates, in survivors of vascular surgery. Median follow-up was 3.0 (interquartile range 2.4-3.8) years. RESULTS: Impaired glucose tolerance (n = 104) and DM (n = 43) were detected by fasting glucose levels in 26 (25%) and 12 (28%) patients, and by OGTT in 78 (75%) and 31 (72%) patients, respectively. During follow-up, 131 patients experienced a cardiovascular event. With multivariable analysis, patients with IGT showed a significant increased risk for cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 2.77, 95% CI 1.83-4.20) and mortality (hazard ratio 2.06, 95% CI 1.03-4.12). Patients with DM showed a nonsignificant increased risk for cardiovascular events. CONCLUSION: Vascular surgery patients with IGT or DM detected by preoperative OGTT have an increased risk of developing cardiovascular events and mortality during long-term follow-up. It is recommended that nondiabetic vascular surgery patients should be tested for glucose regulation disorders before surgery
 
I think that a one time measurement of blood sugar does not have much value in predicting peri-operative complications and knowing the Hba1c if definitely more relevant.
If the Hba1c is high it says the patient has poorly controlled diabetes and possibly end organ damage that will increase the peri-op morbidity and mortality.
The only time where a high blood sugar might be a factor in deciding to postpone a case is if there were signs of severe dehydration or frank Keto Acidosis.
 
I think that a one time measurement of blood sugar does not have much value in predicting peri-operative complications and knowing the Hba1c if definitely more relevant.
If the Hba1c is high it says the patient has poorly controlled diabetes and possibly end organ damage that will increase the peri-op morbidity and mortality.
The only time where a high blood sugar might be a factor in deciding to postpone a case is if there were signs of severe dehydration or frank Keto Acidosis.

We'll at least be thinking about cancelling a case with a BS > 300. I think in and of itself, that indicates relatively poor control.
 
Your not going to cancel a case if someone has a high A1c. Period.

-copro
 
His point is, SHOULD we though...

Messing up the schedule sucks but if the pt will do a lot better after intense glucose control for 3 months.

Refuse to do the surgery if the HgA1c isnt "controlled". Maybe then the pt will comply


Your not going to cancel a case if someone has a high A1c. Period.

-copro
 
His point is, SHOULD we though...

Messing up the schedule sucks but if the pt will do a lot better after intense glucose control for 3 months.

Refuse to do the surgery if the HgA1c isnt "controlled". Maybe then the pt will comply

The answer: it depends.

It depends on the extent and "electivity" of the surgery. It depends on whether or not better A1c will affect outcome (retrospective studies and confounders aside). And, it depends on whether or not you actually believe that a well-documented and poorly-controlled diabetic is suddenly going to "come to Jesus", go home, and then do better over the next three months.

Then, you have the whole issue about whether or not the patient will have something really, really bad happen to them while they're waiting for their surgery. Even if it's just a TKA, chances are the patient isn't suddenly going to get "less sedentary" until you fix that knee.

I stand by my original assertion... for a multitude of reasons... not the least of which is patient-adherence issues.

-copro
 
Agree with Copro.

I can't even begin to imagine the $hitstorm that would result if we started canceling cases for high A1Cs.

I think that this is ultimately an issue that affects postoperative surgical outcomes and management, but if someone shows up with a BG of 105 and an A1C of 9, I don't think it changes their anesthetic management to any appreciable degree. Overall risks may be somewhat higher, true, and this may warrant discussion with the patient, but you wouldn't change your anesthetic for an isolated elevated A1C. Therefore a decision to check an A1C and cancel a case because of worse postop outcomes should rest with surgery, not us.

IMO.
 
Agree with Copro.

I can't even begin to imagine the $hitstorm that would result if we started canceling cases for high A1Cs.

I think that this is ultimately an issue that affects postoperative surgical outcomes and management, but if someone shows up with a BG of 105 and an A1C of 9, I don't think it changes their anesthetic management to any appreciable degree. Overall risks may be somewhat higher, true, and this may warrant discussion with the patient, but you wouldn't change your anesthetic for an isolated elevated A1C. Therefore a decision to check an A1C and cancel a case because of worse postop outcomes should rest with surgery, not us.

IMO.

Well, you got most of it right. I work in an environment where many of the surgeons don't necessarily keep up with the data. When we begin to see more studies over the next few years showing INCREASED mortality wth uncontrolled hgbA1c Levels you may have an obligation to the patient if not legallly then morally to discuss rescheduling. At the least we should be showing the data to the Cardiac/Vascular surgeons about uncontrolled diabetes. At this point in time I wouldn't cancel or postpone the case either. But, would you order a HgbA1C if your facility had a small Point of service device available? You know the old saying "never order a test you don't want to know the results for."

Blade
 
[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]DOI: 10.1530/eje.1.02321[/SIZE]
European Journal of Endocrinology, Vol 156, Issue 1, 137-142
Copyright © 2007 by European Society of Endocrinology
[/SIZE]This Article
spacer.gif
arrowTtrim.gif
Full Text
arrowTtrim.gif
Full Text (PDF)
arrowTtrim.gif
Alert me when this article is cited
arrowTtrim.gif
citation manager
spacer.gif
Citing , D. [SIZE=+1]CLINICAL STUDY[/SIZE]
Increased preoperative glucose levels are associated with perioperative mortality in patients undergoing noncardiac, nonvascular surgery

Peter G Noordzij, Eric Boersma2, Frodo Schreiner, Miklos D Kertai1, Harm H H Feringa, Martin Dunkelgrun1, Jeroen J Bax3, Jan Klein and Don Poldermans


Departments of Anesthesiology, 1 Vascular Surgery, and 2 Cardiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Dr Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands and 3 Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands
(Correspondence should be addressed to D Poldermans; Email: [email protected] )
Objective: To determine the relationship between preoperative glucose levels and perioperative mortality in noncardiac, nonvascular surgery.
Research design and methods: We performed a case–control study in a cohort of 108 593 patients who underwent noncardiac surgery at the Erasmus MC during 1991–2001. Cases were 989 patients who underwent elective noncardiac, nonvascular surgery and died within 30 days during hospital stay. From the remaining patients, 1879 matched controls (age, sex, calendar year, and type of surgery) were selected. Information was obtained regarding the presence of cardiac risk factors, medication, and preoperative laboratory results. Preoperative random glucose levels <5.6 mmol/l (110 mg/dl) were normal. Impaired glucose levels in the range of 5.6–11.1 mmol/l were prediabetes. Glucose levels
ge.gif
11.1 mmol/l (200 mg/dl) were diabetes.

Results: Preoperative glucose levels were available in 904 cases and 1247 controls. A cardiovascular complication was the primary cause of death in 207 (23%) cases. Prediabetes glucose levels were associated with a 1.7-fold increased mortality risk compared with normoglycemic levels (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.7 and 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4–2.1; P<0.001). Diabetes glucose levels were associated with a 2.1-fold increased risk (adjusted OR 2.1 and 95% CI 1.3–3.5; P<0.001). In cases with cardiovascular death, prediabetes glucose levels had a threefold increased cardiovascular mortality risk (adjusted OR 3.0 and 95% CI 1.7–5.1) and diabetes glucose levels had a fourfold increased cardiovascular mortality risk (OR 4.0 and 95% CI 1.3–12).
Conclusions: Preoperative hyperglycemia is associated with increased (cardiovascular) mortality in patients undergoing noncardiac, nonvascular surgery.
 
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2006 Aug;32(2):188-97. Epub 2006 Mar 31. Links

Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1C) in non-diabetic and diabetic vascular patients. Is HbA1C an independent risk factor and predictor of adverse outcome?

O'Sullivan CJ, Hynes N, Mahendran B, Andrews EJ, Avalos G, Tawfik S, Lowery A, Sultan S.
Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Western Vascular Institute, University College Hospital, Galway, Ireland.
BACKGROUND: Plasma Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) reflects ambient mean glycaemia over a 2-3 months period. Reports indicate that patients, with and without diabetes, with an elevated HbA1c have an increased risk of adverse outcome following surgical intervention. Our aim was to determine whether elevated plasma HbA1c level was associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing vascular surgical procedures. METHODS: Plasma HbA1c was measured prospectively in 165 consecutive patients undergoing emergency and elective vascular surgical procedures over a 6-month period. Patients were categorized into four groups depending on whether their plasma HbA1c was < or =6%, 6.1-7%, 7.1-8% or >8% and clinical data was entered into a prospectively maintained database. Patients were also classified by diabetic status with suboptimal HbA1c in a patient without diabetes being >6 to < or =7% and suboptimal HbA1c in a patient with diabetes being >7%. Patients with plasma HbA1c >7% were reclassified as having undiagnosed diabetes mellitus. Composite primary endpoints were all cause 30-day morbidity and mortality and all cause 6-month mortality. Composite secondary endpoints were procedure specific complications, adverse cardiac events, stroke, infection and mean length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Of the 165 patients studied, 43 (26.1%) had diabetes and the remaining 122 (73.9%) did not. The mean age was 72 years and 59% were male. Suboptimal HbA1c levels were found in 58% patients without diabetes and in 51% patients with diabetes. In patients without diabetes those with suboptimal HbA1c levels (6-7%) had a significantly higher incidence of overall 30-day morbidity compared to patients with HbA1c levels < or =6% (56.5 vs 15.7%, p<0.001). Similarly, for patients with diabetes those with suboptimal HbA1c levels (HbA1c >7%) had a significantly higher incidence of 30-day morbidity compared to those with HbA1c levels < or =7% (59.1% vs 19%, p=0.018). Multivariate analysis revealed that a plasma HbA1c level of >6 to < or =7% was a significant independent predictor of overall 30-day morbidity in patients without diabetes undergoing vascular surgical procedures. No difference in mortality, composite secondary endpoints, procedure specific complications, stroke or mean length of hospital stay was observed between any of the groups in the study. CONCLUSION: Suboptimal HbA1c levels may hold prognostic significance in patients without diabetes undergoing vascular
 
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008 Sep;136(3):631-40. Links

Elevated preoperative hemoglobin A1c level is predictive of adverse events after coronary artery bypass surgery.

Halkos ME, Puskas JD, Lattouf OM, Kilgo P, Kerendi F, Song HK, Guyton RA, Thourani VH.
Clinical Research Unit, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
OBJECTIVE: Diabetes mellitus has been associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting. Hemoglobin A1c is a reliable measure of long-term glucose control. It is unknown whether adequacy of diabetic control, measured by hemoglobin A1c, is a predictor of adverse outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting. METHODS: Of 3555 consecutive patients who underwent primary, elective coronary artery bypass grafting at a single academic center from April 1, 2002, to June 30, 2006, 3089 (86.9%) had preoperative hemoglobin A1c levels obtained and entered prospectively into a computerized database. All patients were treated with a perioperative intravenous insulin protocol. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to determine whether hemoglobin A1c, as a continuous variable, was associated with in-hospital mortality, renal failure, cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, and deep sternal wound infection after coronary artery bypass grafting. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis identified the hemoglobin A1c value that maximally discriminated outcome dichotomies. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality for all patients was 1.0% (31/3089). An elevated hemoglobin A1c level predicted in-hospital mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting (odds ratio 1.40 per unit increase, P = .019). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that hemoglobin A1c greater than 8.6% was associated with a 4-fold increase in mortality. For each unit increase in hemoglobin A1c, there was a significantly increased risk of myocardial infarction and deep sternal wound infection. By using receiver operating characteristic value thresholds, renal failure (threshold 6.7, odds ratio 2.1), cerebrovascular accident (threshold 7.6, odds ratio 2.24), and deep sternal wound infection (threshold 7.8, odds ratio 5.29) occurred more commonly in patients with elevated hemoglobin A1c. CONCLUSION: Elevated hemoglobin A1c level was strongly associated with adverse events after coronary artery bypass grafting. Preoperative hemoglobin A1c testing may allow for more accurate risk stratification in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting
 
The data seems pretty convincing that a HgbA1c greater than 8.5 (probably even 7-8 range) preoperatively is an indicator of severe morbidity/mortality for MAJOR surgical procedures.

If nothing else at least you now know that HgbA1c may have potential as a prognostic indicator for Cardiac/Vascular patients.
 
The data seems pretty convincing that a HgbA1c greater than 8.5 (probably even 7-8 range) preoperatively is an indicator of severe morbidity/mortality for MAJOR surgical procedures.

If nothing else at least you now know that HgbA1c may have potential as a prognostic indicator for Cardiac/Vascular patients.

I agree.

But I still think this is an issue that surgery needs to own, not us. They're the one seeing the patient in the weeks and months prior to surgery, they need to get the ball rolling on optimization long before the patient shows up in holding.

Once it's 7AM on the day of surgery, ACC/AHA guidelines still say proceed to the OR without further testing if >4 METS. Even for major surgery.

All you can do at that point is inform the patient of the increased risk, and be ready for a cardiovascular event in the OR. But my point is that you already were going to be ready for it, because it's still a major surgical procedure.

The critical decision is made when a patient with an elevated A1C is booked for the OR, and the responsibility to optimize must therefore rest on the surgeons and their IM consultants.
 
Would you cancel an elective case if the blood sugar was 600?

Of course.

But, if they had an A1c of 8.7% and their glucose was 120 with a K+ in normal range on the day of surgery, no. Would I use that information in attempt to give them more effective peri-operative care? Of course.

-copro
 
The data seems pretty convincing that a HgbA1c greater than 8.5 (probably even 7-8 range) preoperatively is an indicator of severe morbidity/mortality for MAJOR surgical procedures.

If nothing else at least you now know that HgbA1c may have potential as a prognostic indicator for Cardiac/Vascular patients.

Blade, the A1c level is the smoke, not the fire.

Better perioperative care (perhaps directed by the anesthesiologist 😉 ) would, in my estimation and if I were a gambling man, likely improve outcome.

-copro
 
Of course.

But, if they had an A1c of 8.7% and their glucose was 120 with a K+ in normal range on the day of surgery, no. Would I use that information in attempt to give them more effective peri-operative care? Of course.

-copro
Good.
Bear with me here:
Why would you cancel the case if the blood sugar is 600?
What are your concerns if you proceed?
Now how about if the Blood sugar is 200 but the A1c is 12 would you proceed? (since A1c is "only the smoke not the fire")
 
Good.
Bear with me here:
Why would you cancel the case if the blood sugar is 600?
What are your concerns if you proceed?
Now how about if the Blood sugar is 200 but the A1c is 12 would you proceed? (since A1c is "only the smoke not the fire")

You have to presume, with a blood sugar of 600, that the patient is in the acute process of a severe metabolic derangement. If you try to correct that in the immediate peri-operative period, you will be (essentially) guessing at potassium flux as well as fluid requirements across membranes.

If you have someone with a high A1c, that is only a snapshot across the range of the lifespan of that RBC. If they present day of surgery without any stigmata of of acute process occurring, there's no reason to cancel the surgery.

Now, the likelihood of someone presenting with a 12% A1c not being compromised in some other way on day of presentation (since you raised the bar) is low. We should presume that this person may not have been clinically optimized regarding their co-morbid conditions that go hand-in-hand with diabetes that, not the least of which, probably represents some underlying adherence issues. But, we weren't talking about a 12%. We're talking about, as Blade quotes, an "8.6%" that correlated with worse outcomes in major surgery. My supposition is that this 8.6%, in retrospective study, merely represents a surrogate marker for more serious co-morbidity that was likely not properly defined or treated (e.g., renal disease, cardiovascular disease, etc.) and not the result of the metabolic syndrome in and of itself.

Fact is, we take patients with high A1c levels to the operating room all the time. Until you can define what the nature of the underlying co-morbid conditions are, even if you are able to statistically show that high A1c is an independent modifier, in a prospective manner, this is all a fart in a windstorm.

So, I'm not sure where you're going with this... and I'm not sure you are either. And, I'm sure as hell not going to cancel a case just because of a high A1c level. Are you?

-copro
 
So, you are only concerned about the immediate intra-op course and even if the literature says that high A1c means more perioperative complications, wound infection and cardiovascular mortality you simply don't care!
All you want to do is make sure at the end of the case the number look pretty!
So, why are you better than any CRNA??


You have to presume, with a blood sugar of 600, that the patient is in the acute process of a severe metabolic derangement. If you try to correct that in the immediate peri-operative period, you will be (essentially) guessing at potassium flux as well as fluid requirements across membranes.

If you have someone with a high A1c, that is only a snapshot across the range of the lifespan of that RBC. If they present day of surgery without any stigmata of of acute process occurring, there's no reason to cancel the surgery.

Now, the likelihood of someone presenting with a 12% A1c not being compromised in some other way on day of presentation (since you raised the bar) is low. We should presume that this person may not have been clinically optimized regarding their co-morbid conditions that go hand-in-hand with diabetes that, not the least of which, probably represents some underlying adherence issues. But, we weren't talking about a 12%. We're talking about, as Blade quotes, an "8.6%" that correlated with worse outcomes in major surgery. My supposition is that this 8.6%, in retrospective study, merely represents a surrogate marker for more serious co-morbidity that was likely not properly defined or treated (e.g., renal disease, cardiovascular disease, etc.) and not the result of the metabolic syndrome in and of itself.

Fact is, we take patients with high A1c levels to the operating room all the time. Until you can define what the nature of the underlying co-morbid conditions are, even if you are able to statistically show that high A1c is an independent modifier, in a prospective manner, this is all a fart in a windstorm.

So, I'm not sure where you're going with this... and I'm not sure you are either. And, I'm sure as hell not going to cancel a case just because of a high A1c level. Are you?

-copro
 
So, you are only concerned about the immediate intra-op course and even if the literature says that high A1c means more perioperative complications, wound infection and cardiovascular mortality you simply don't care!
All you want to do is make sure at the end of the case the number look pretty!
So, why are you better than any CRNA??

Oh, now you're just putting words in my mouth and trying to save face because you think I attacked you and made you look stupid. Shame, shame.

Association does not equal causation, Plank. Every (good) doctor knows that. And, that's all we have here from these limited, retrospective studies.

-copro
 
Furthermore and more importantly, doctor...

The real question to you is this: Would you cancel a case solely because a patient presents for an elective surgery with an A1c of 8.6%?

The answer to that question is where the rubber meets the road. You can huff-and-puff all you want, but you know you wouldn't. And, I've more than amply illustrated and justified above the reasons why you wouldn't either, doctor.

-copro
 
Oh, now you're just putting words in my mouth and trying to save face because you think I attacked you and made you look stupid. Shame, shame.

Association does not equal causation, Plank. Every (good) doctor knows that. And, that's all we have here from these limited, retrospective studies.


-copro
No, I am not upset because of your ignorance, I am just saying that you might want to understand the issue before you use such assertive language like saying you should "never" cancel a case based on A1c.
You are saying that a one time blood sugar number is more important than the value of A1c that reflects the overall control of diabetes.
I disagreed with you on this (strongly).
And you called A1c a "snap shot", which is actually what a one time blood sugar value should be called, so I disagreed with you here again.
I can't believe you are finshing residency in 2 months! 😱
Otherwise you know I still love you.
 
Furthermore and more importantly, doctor...

The real question to you is this: Would you cancel a case solely because a patient presents for an elective surgery with an A1c of 8.6%?

The answer to that question is where the rubber meets the road. You can huff-and-puff all you want, but you know you wouldn't. And, I've more than amply illustrated and justified above the reasons why you wouldn't either, doctor.

-copro
Doctor (and I am using this expression very loosely), I would take all the available data into consideration and I would not cancel any case based on one single number.
Further more, I would never use an assertive language like saying you should NEVER cancel a case because of A1C because sometimes in some patient you might have to.
 
Doctor (and I am using this expression very loosely), I would take all the available data into consideration and I would not cancel any case based on one single number.
Further more, I would never use an assertive language like saying you should NEVER cancel a case because of A1C because sometimes in some patient you might have to.

Thank you! Then, we clearly agree. You are saying the exact same thing as I am, but just adding a lot of extra circumlocution, stipulations, goalpost-moving, and philosophical masturbation in the process.

See? You didn't have to huff-and-puff, but I know you like to do it so much.

😍

-copro
 
Last edited:
Thank you! Then, we clearly agree. You are saying the exact same thing as I am, but just adding a lot of extra circumspection, stipulations, goalpost-moving, and philosophical masturbation in the process.

See? You didn't have to huff-and-puff, but I know you like to do it so much.

😍

-copro
So you agree with me that your assertion that you would "never" cancel a case based on A1c was incorrect.
And that you would not cancel a case based on high blood sugar alone either (although you said earlier that you would cancel a case if the BS was 600).
Graet then, there might be some hope for you after all.

😍
 
So you agree with me that your assertion that you would "never" cancel a case based on A1c was incorrect.
And that you would not cancel a case based on high blood sugar alone either (although you said earlier that you would cancel a case if the BS was 600).
Graet then, there might be some hope for you after all.

😍

You apparently have a reading comprehension disorder.

If a patient came to me, day of surgery, and the only grossly abnormal analyte was the A1c level - I would not cancel the surgery.

Re-read the thread. I don't know how I can possibly make this any simpler for you. If you can't understand this concept, you, on the other hand, are clearly beyond hope.

-copro
 
You apparently have a reading comprehension disorder.

If a patient came to me, day of surgery, and the only grossly abnormal analyte was the A1c level - I would not cancel the surgery.

Re-read the thread. I don't know how I can possibly make this any simpler for you. If you can't understand this concept, you, on the other hand, are clearly beyond hope.

-copro
So, you see, we are not actually saying the same thing.
Because you are obviously still saying that you would cancel the guy with 600 BS as the only abnormal finding but you would not cancel the guy with high A1c as the only abnormal value.
For a moment I thought that you actually understood what I am trying to convey to you but obviously I was being too optimistic.
The point is:
If you think a one time high BS is enough to cancel a case then you should also consider a poorly controllede diabetes at the same level or more important in your decision making process.
I am not saying that you should cancel in either situation unless there is other criteria "doctor"
Is that really too complicated?
 
So, you see, we are not actually saying the same thing.
Because you are obviously still saying that you would cancel the guy with 600 BS as the only abnormal finding but you would not cancel the guy with high A1c as the only abnormal value.
For a moment I thought that you actually understood what I am trying to convey to you but obviously I was being too optimistic.
The point is:
If you think a one time high BS is enough to cancel a case then you should also consider a poorly controllede diabetes at the same level or more important in your decision making process.
I am not saying that you should cancel in either situation unless there is other criteria "doctor"
Is that really too complicated?

Like I already said, I'm not sure where you're going with this... and I'm not sure you are either. I'm beginning to believe that you don't actually have a point, just more circumlocution.

-copro
 
Like I already said, I'm not sure where you're going with this... and I'm not sure you are either. I'm beginning to believe that you don't actually have a point, just more circumlocution.

-copro
How many times I have to say it?
If you think you should cancel for HIGH BS then you should cancel for HIGH A1C.
You have to think of a high A1C as several high BS values which is more important and more relvant than a one time measurment.
I am not saying you should cancel a case based on any single isolated vlue.
Sorry for challenging you rapidly growing ego otherwise. 😀
 
How many times I have to say it?
If you think you should cancel for HIGH BS then
you should cancel for HIGH A1C.
You have to think of a high A1C as several high BS values which is more important and more relvant than a one time measurment.
I am not saying you should cancel a case based on any single isolated vlue.
Sorry for challenging you rapidly growing ego otherwise.
😀

Plank,

If you know that other people are reading this thread, then you also know that other people can see the ridiculous contradiction in not only this but your other posts in this thread. Your lack of logic and coherent, consistent message is very worrisome.

That's all I'm going to say.

-copro
 
Actually, I'm going to say one more thing to show you how ridiculous your position is...

Patient is scheduled for a TKA. He sees his PMD two weeks prior to the procedure, and his A1c is 10.1%. Over the course of the next two weeks, he aggressively gets his blood sugars under control, undergoes a whole host of pre-operative testing (echo, EKG, lab panels, etc.). The day before the surgery, he comes in and his A1c is now 9.3%, his blood sugar is 110 mg/dL, his K+ is normal, and his cardiac work-up shows that he has a normal EF and no significant CV disease.

You cancel this case and you're going to have a lot of explaining to do not only to the surgeon but also to the patient.

-copro
 
Actually, I'm going to say one more thing to show you how ridiculous your position is...

Patient is scheduled for a TKA. He sees his PMD two weeks prior to the procedure, and his A1c is 10.1%. Over the course of the next two weeks, he aggressively gets his blood sugars under control, undergoes a whole host of pre-operative testing (echo, EKG, lab panels, etc.). The day before the surgery, he comes in and his A1c is now 9.3%, his blood sugar is 110 mg/dL, his K+ is normal, and his cardiac work-up shows that he has a normal EF and no significant CV disease.

You cancel this case and you're going to have a lot of explaining to do not only to the surgeon but also to the patient.

-copro
I didn't say i would cancel this case I said I will look at the whole picture and make a decision because I treat patients not numbers.
I never generalize in medicine, there is no such things as "definitely", or "absolutely" and this is where I disagree with you.
You said you would cancel a case for a blood sugar of 600 and i am just trying to point out that an abnormal A1C might be more important in predicting trouble than a one time high BS that you considred enough to cancel a case!
 
Plank,

If you know that other people are reading this thread, then you also know that other people can see the ridiculous contradiction in not only this but your other posts in this thread. Your lack of logic and coherent, consistent message is very worrisome.

That's all I'm going to say.

-copro
I am trying to implant this simple concept in your brain and make you think about it:
If a one time BS is of concern to you then a high A1C should be of concern as well if not more.
I would not consider any one abnormal value a reason to cancel a surgery by itself even a blood sugar of 600.
 
There's nothing wrong with that statement. And, I've painfully and in excrutiatingly long-winded detail explained why.

But... just so it's perfectly clear...

An A1c number - in and off itself - has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I proceed to the OR with a case. I would not cancel a case for an A1c > 8% unless the patient had something else wrong with them that required me to cancel the case.

I don't know how I can put it more simply than that. You're just trying to argue with me (which is your nature), when it is clear that you are actually agreeing with me... although you are loathe to admit it.

-copro
 
This is not what you said initially.


Your not going to cancel a case if someone has a high A1c. Period.

-copro

And, when I asked if you would cancel for a BS of 600 you said "absolutely" without any hesitation.
I think that if you consider a one time high BS good enough to cancel a case then a high A1c should be seen as a reason to cancel as well.
Notice I am not advising you to cancel for either one.
If all you see is your intraop anesthetic management then what you are doing is anything but perioperative medicine and I find this disturbing for someone who is still a resident.
 
This is not what you said initially.

And, when I asked if you would cancel for a BS of 600 you said "absolutely" without any hesitation.
I think that if you consider a one time high BS good enough to cancel a case then a high A1c should be seen as a reason to cancel as well.
Notice I am not advising you to cancel for either one.
If all you see is your intraop anesthetic management then what you are doing is anything but perioperative medicine and I find this disturbing for someone who is still a resident.

:bang:

There is a decent chance that you are purposefully being "thick" because you like to argue. I sure hope that's it. But, others reading this thread will be the judge of that. I don't know how I can be any more clear than I already have been, and stand by everything I've said.

-copro
 
:headbang:

There is a decent chance that you are purposefully being "thick" because you like to argue. I sure hope that's it. But, others reading this thread will be the judge of that. I don't know how I can be any more clear than I already have been, and stand by everything I've said.

-copro

I know that you stand by everything you said and that's the problem!
It's too early for you in your growth process to be so certain of anything and to refuse to see other points of view.
If that's how you start your career then I hate to see what you are going to do 10 years from now.
 
I know that you stand by everything you said and that's the problem!
It's too early for you in your growth process to be so certain of anything and to refuse to see other points of view.
If that's how you start your career then I hate to see what you are going to do 10 years from now.

WHAT OTHER POINT OF VIEW???!??

Dude, you've been talking in circles for at least the PAST TEN POSTS!

-copro
 
:bang:

Trying to have a discussion with you is like arguing with a 4-year-old... or some of my ex-girlfriends.

Done with this thread.

-copro
 
Top