4.7 Article

Preoperative Oral Carbohydrate Load Versus Placebo in Major Elective Abdominal Surgery (PROCY) A Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Multicenter, Phase III Trial

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 267, 期 4, 页码 623-630

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002325

关键词

hyperglycemia; infections; outcome; randomized trial; surgery

类别

资金

  1. Surgical Infection Society-Europe

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To explore whether preoperative oral carbohydrate (CHO) loading could achieve a reduction in the occurrence of postoperative infections. Background: Hyperglycemia may increase the risk of infection. Preoperative CHO loading can achieve postoperative glycemic control. Methods: This was a randomized, controlled, multicenter, open-label trial. Nondiabetic adult patients who were candidates for elective major abdominal operation were randomized (1:1) to a CHO (preoperative oral intake of 800 mL of water containing 100 g of CHO) or placebo group (intake of 800 mL of water). The blood glucose level was measured every 4 hours for 4 days. Insulin was administered when the blood glucose level was >180 mg/dL. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of postoperative infection. The secondary endpoint was the number of patients needing insulin. Results: From January 2011 through December 2015, 880 patients were randomly allocated to the CHO (n = 438) or placebo (n = 442) group. From each group, 331 patients were available for the analysis. Postoperative infection occurred in 16.3% (54/331) of CHO group patients and 16.0% (53/331) of placebo group patients (relative risk 1.019, 95% confidence interval 0.720-1.442, P = 1.00). Insulin was needed in 8 (2.4%) CHO group patients and 53 (16.0%) placebo group patients (relative risk 0.15, 95% confidence interval 0.07-0.31, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Oral preoperative CHO load is effective for avoiding a blood glucose level >180 mg/dL, but without affecting the risk of postoperative infectious complication.

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

4.7
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