4.4 Article

The association of diabetes and glucose control with surgical-site infections among cardiothoracic surgery patients

Journal

INFECTION CONTROL AND HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 10, Pages 607-612

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/501830

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: To assess the importance of diabetes, diabetes control, hyperglycemia, and previously undiagnosed diabetes in the development of surgical-site infections (SSIs): among cardiothoracic surgery patients. SETTING: A 540-bed tertiary-care university-affiliated hospital. DESIGN: Prospective cohort and case-control studies. PATIENTS: All patients having cardiothoracic surgery between November 1998 and September 1999 were eligible: for participation. One thousand patients had preoperative hemoglobin Alc determinations. Seventy-four patients with SSIs were identified. RESULTS: Diabetes (odd ratio [OR], 2.76; P < .001) and postoperative hyperglycemia (OR, 2.02; P=.007) were independently associated with development of SSIs. Among known diabetics, elevated hemoglobin Alc values were not associated with a statistically significantly increased risk of infection; the mean Alc value was 8.44% among those with infections compared with 7.80% for those, without (P=6.09). Forty-two (6%) of 700 patients without prior diabetes history had evidence of undiagnosed diabetes; their infection rate was comparable to that of known diabetics (3/42 [7%] vs 17/300 [6%]; P=.72). An additional 30% of nondiabetics had elevated hemoglobin Alc determinations or perioperative hyperglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative hyperglycemia and previously undiagnosed diabetes are associated with development of SSIs among cardiothoracic surgery patients. Screening for diabetes and hyperglycemia. among patients having cardiothoracic may be warranted to prevent postoperative and chronic complications of this metabolic abnormality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available