4.3 Article

Predictors of severe postoperative hyperglycemia after cardiac surgery in infants: a single-center, retrospective, observational study

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIA
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 160-166

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s00540-017-2444-x

关键词

Hyperglycemia; Heart surgery; Infants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Hyperglycemia is a common issue in infants after cardiac surgery for congenital heart disease. Poor glycemic control is suspected to be associated with adverse postoperative outcomes. This study was performed to investigate clinical factors contributing to hyperglycemia in the perioperative period in infats. Methods A total of 69 infants (aged 1-12 months) who were admitted to Yokohama City University Hospital Intensive Care Unit (ICU) after surgical repair of congenital heart diseases with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) were retrospectively analysed. Hyperglycemia was defined as blood glucose >= 250 mg/dL on ICU admission. Clinical background, operative factors, and postoperative factors were compared between the hyperglycemic and non-hyperglycemic groups. Additionally, multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors contributing to hyperglycemia. Results Nineteen (27.5%) and 50 (72.5%) infants were classified into the hyperglycemic and non-hyperglycemic groups, respectively. Hyperglycemic infants were significantly younger, shorter, and weighed less, with a higher rate of chromosomal abnormalities. Intraoperatively, they also experienced longer CPB and surgery times and had higher peak lactate levels and higher inotropic requirements. Hyperglycemia was related to longer mechanical ventilation and longer ICU stays. Multivariate analysis detected intraoperative hyperglycemia, longer CPB time, younger age and chromosomal abnormality as significant factors. Conclusion Adding to hyperglycemia during the operation, longer CPB time younger age and chromosomal abnormality were identified as predictors of high blood glucose levels at ICU admission.

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

4.3
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