4.2 Article

Use of a Lower Cut-Off Value for HbA1c to Predict Postoperative Renal Complication Risk in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2013.02.030

关键词

Hemoglobin A1c; CABG; renal complication; glucose; cardiac surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: There is an increasing interest in reexamining the relationship between glucose levels and postoperative complications. Threshold levels of HbA(1c) below those currently recommended may be additional indicators of risk for renal and cardiovascular dysfunction. In this study, the authors analyzed the perioperative outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) operations to evaluate the association of HbA(1c) levels and renal complications. Design: Retrospective. Setting: Research and training hospital, single institution. Participants: The prospectively collected data of 510 coronary bypass patients with documented HbA(1c) levels were analyzed. Interventions: The relationship of HbA(1c) with postoperative renal morbidity was evaluated with logistic regression analysis with lower threshold value (5.9%) for elevated levels. Measurements and Main Results: Two hundred ninety-three patients (57.5%) had elevated HbA(1c) values. Patients with high HbA(1c) levels (>5.9%) had higher incidences of atherosclerotic vascular diseases. The incidence of acute kidney injury was higher in the high HbA(1c) group (11.9% v 1.8%; p = 0.0001). The high HbA(1c) group had higher incidence of renal morbidity (odds ratio = 4.608), and every 1% increase over 5.9% increased risk of renal complications by 23.6%. The other factors associated with renal morbidity were known history of diabetes, chronic renal disease, and performance of any concomitant procedure. Conclusions: The elevated levels of HbA(1c) are associated with increased renal complications and the cut-off values of HbA(1c) could be lowered to the upper range of normal limits. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据