Next Article in Journal
Comparison of the Efficacy of Human Umbilical Cord-Derived and Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Cartilage Repair Defects of the Knee via Arthroscopic Implementation on Scaffolds in a Retrospective Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Remimazolam for Procedural Sedation in Older Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Non-Pharmacological Intervention for Personalizing Sleep Quality through Gentle Rocking Motion
Previous Article in Special Issue
Performance of a Machine Learning Algorithm to Predict Hypotension in Spontaneously Breathing Non-Ventilated Post-Anesthesia and ICU Patients
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JPM
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/jpm14020219
jpm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Preoperative Glycosylated Haemoglobin Screening to Identify Older Adult Patients with Undiagnosed Diabetes Mellitus—A Retrospective Cohort Study

by
Robert van Wilpe
1,
Mark L. van Zuylen
1,2,
Jeroen Hermanides
1,
J. Hans DeVries
3,
Benedikt Preckel
1,* and
Abraham H. Hulst
1
1
Department of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Postbus 22660, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2
Department of Paediatric Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Postbus 22660, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3
Department of Endocrinology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Postbus 22660, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Pers. Med. 2024, 14(2), 219; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14020219
Submission received: 22 January 2024 / Revised: 13 February 2024 / Accepted: 16 February 2024 / Published: 19 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue State of the Art of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
More than 25% of older adults in Europe have diabetes mellitus. It is estimated that 45% of patients with diabetes are currently undiagnosed, which is a known risk factor for perioperative morbidity. We investigated whether routine HbA1c screening in older adult patients undergoing surgery would identify patients with undiagnosed diabetes. We included patients aged ≥65 years without a diagnosis of diabetes who visited the preoperative assessment clinic at the Amsterdam University Medical Center and underwent HbA1c screening within three months before surgery. Patients undergoing cardiac surgery were excluded. We assessed the prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes (defined as HbA1c ≥ 48 mmol·mol−1) and prediabetes (HbA1c 39–47 mmol·mol−1). Using a multivariate regression model, we analysed the ability of HbA1c to predict days alive and at home within 30 days after surgery. From January to December 2019, we screened 2015 patients ≥65 years at our clinic. Of these, 697 patients without a diagnosis of diabetes underwent HbA1c screening. The prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes was 3.7% (95%CI 2.5–5.4%) and 42.9% (95%CI 39.2–46.7%), respectively. Preoperative HbA1c was not associated with days alive and at home within 30 days after surgery. In conclusion, we identified a small number of patients with undiagnosed diabetes and a high prevalence of prediabetes based on preoperative HbA1c screening in a cohort of older adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery. The relevance of prediabetes in the perioperative setting is unclear. Screening for HbA1c in older adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery does not appear to help predict postoperative outcome.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is one of the most prevalent comorbidities in surgical patients and is associated with perioperative morbidity [1,2,3,4,5]. Perioperative care providers can take measures to prevent perioperative dysglycaemia in patients with DM, e.g., by preoperative dose adjustments for diabetes medications and regular blood glucose monitoring. However, DM may not always be diagnosed at the time of surgery, as the lack of symptoms during the early course of type 2 DM can delay its diagnosis considerably [6]. Extrapolations from population-based studies indicate that over 30% of patients with DM between the ages of 20 and 79 years living in high-income countries in Europe are currently undiagnosed [7]. Since the risk of developing DM increases with age, it is likely that a substantial number of older adult patients visiting the preoperative assessment clinic have yet undiagnosed DM. Identifying these patients is relevant, because hyperglycaemia is associated with a worse in-hospital outcome in patients with undiagnosed DM, compared to those with known DM [8,9,10,11].
The diagnosis of DM is based on criteria for plasma glucose or glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) [12,13,14]. Plasma glucose criteria include the fasting plasma glucose (FPG) value and the two-hour plasma glucose value during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), which may not be feasible at the time of preoperative screening, as both tests require at least 8 h of prior fasting. Formed by the glycation of the haemoglobin protein, HbA1c reflects the average glycaemic control over the last three months (i.e., the average life span of red blood cells) and is a predictor of both perioperative glucose control and adverse outcome after surgery [2,15,16,17,18,19], even within the prediabetes range (39–47 mmol·mol−1) [15]. Although the preoperative measurement of HbA1c in patients with DM is recommended in several perioperative guidelines [20,21,22], it is not commonly used as a screening tool for DM during preoperative assessment.
In Europe, the estimated prevalence of DM in people over 65 years of age is 27.8% [23]. We hypothesised that preoperative screening for DM by the routine measurement of HbA1c in older adult patients would identify patients with undiagnosed DM. We also aimed to evaluate the relationship between HbA1c and postoperative outcome, measured as days alive and at home within 30 days after surgery (DAH30), in patients without a history of DM.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design and Setting

This retrospective observational cohort study was conducted at the Amsterdam UMC—location AMC, a tertiary teaching hospital. The study has been approved by the medical ethical committee AMC (decision W19_044 #19.067). Reporting is in accordance with the STROBE statement on the reporting of observational studies [24].

2.2. Participants

We identified all patients aged ≥65 years who visited the preoperative assessment clinic of the Amsterdam UMC—location AMC from January to December 2019. During this period, an HbA1c measurement was to be routinely performed as part of the preoperative assessment in patients aged ≥65 years who planned to undergo non-emergency procedures requiring anaesthetic care, irrespective of a previous diagnosis of DM. Exceptions included patients with telephone or video consultations and inpatients. Patients with a history of DM and those who objected to the collection of data for research purposes were excluded from this study. Cardiac surgery patients were excluded because their inclusion could introduce bias with regard to the DAH30 outcome. Patients with an HbA1c value measured within 3 months before surgery were included in the primary analysis. In case a patient visited the preoperative assessment clinic more than once during the study period due to multiple surgeries (referred to as duplicates), only the first visit’s HbA1c value was included into the analysis. The management in case of an elevated HbA1c was left to the discretion of the attending physician at the preoperative assessment clinic.

2.3. Outcome Parameters

The main outcome was the prevalence of undiagnosed DM, defined as an HbA1c ≥ 48 mmol·mol−1 (>6.5%) in patients without a diagnosis of DM [12,13]. The prevalence of prediabetes was also assessed, defined as an HbA1c between 39 and 47 mmol·mol−1 (5.7–6.5%) as per the American Diabetes Association (ADA) diagnostic criteria [12]. DAH30 was used as a measure of postoperative outcome [25]. This outcome combines length of stay (LOS), readmission and mortality into a single patient-centred measure and is considered more reliable than the retrospective assessment of postoperative complications alone [25]. DAH30 has been shown to have construct validity and is associated with postoperative complications [25,26]. Hospitalisation days within 30 days after surgery were calculated by adding the LOS after index surgery (day 0) to the number of readmission days within this time period. DAH30 was acquired by subtracting these hospitalisation days from 30. In case of death within 30 days, the DAH30 was scored as zero.

2.4. Data Sources

Patient data were collected by manual review of the electronic health records. In order to minimise the risk of human error, all cases of undiagnosed DM were confirmed by chart review by a second investigator. Demographic characteristics collected included age, gender and body mass index (BMI). Medication use and coexisting cardiovascular disease were assessed. Within the electronic health records, relevant keywords were searched to minimise the risk of errors. The American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA) category was based on the judgment of the attending anaesthetist who screened the patient. Patients classified as ASA ≥ 3 have a severe systemic disease which is either not life-threatening (ASA 3) or a constant threat to life (ASA 4). Functional capacity was based on the patient-reported maximum metabolic equivalent of task (MET) level achievable. Surgical speciality and the type of anaesthesia were recorded. Finally, surgical risk was rated on a 3-point scale—low, intermediate or high risk—in accordance with the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) guidelines on non-cardiac surgery [22].

2.5. Statistical Methods

All analyses were performed using SPSS version 26 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Normality was assessed using Q-Q plots and the Shapiro–Wilk test. Based on previous data in the general preoperative population, 4–7% of patients have undiagnosed DM [2,27,28]. In older adults, we expected this to be at least 10%. To detect this proportion with a 95% confidence level that extends 2.5% both ways, we needed a sample size of at least 554 patients [29]. The binomial confidence intervals of prevalences were calculated using the Clopper–Pearson exact method [30]. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of an elevated HbA1c (i.e., ≥39 mmol·mol−1). Quantile regression was used to analyse the DAH30 outcome because its distribution is highly skewed to the left [25,31]. HbA1c was considered as a dichotomous predictor (<39 mmol·mol−1 versus ≥39 mmol·mol−1) for the 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles of DAH30. Age, sex, BMI, ASA (1 or 2 versus ≥3), cardiovascular comorbidities (hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease) and surgical risk (minor versus moderate/major risk) were used as covariates in both regression models. A p-value < 0.05 was deemed statistically significant.

3. Results

From January to December 2019, 2015 patients aged ≥65 years underwent preoperative screening for elective non-cardiac surgery at our hospital. Duplicates were removed (n = 78) and patients with a diagnosis of DM (n = 404) were excluded, leaving 1533 patients without a history of DM. Of these, 697 had undergone HbA1c testing within 3 months before surgery (Figure 1). Demographic, clinical and surgical characteristics are shown in Table 1. Compared to patients without a recent HbA1c, the group of patients with an HbA1c within 3 months before surgery contained fewer patients with an ASA score of ≥3 and fewer patients undergoing major surgery (Table S1).
The mean preoperative HbA1c was 38.6 (±4.9) mmol·mol−1. We identified 26 cases of undiagnosed DM based on HbA1c, which corresponds to a prevalence of 3.7% (95%CI 2.5–5.4%) and translates into 27 as the number of patients needed to screen in order to detect one patient with undiagnosed DM. There were 299 subjects with a preoperative HbA1c in the prediabetes range, amounting to a prevalence of 42.9% (95%CI 39.2–46.7%) (Table 2).
Age (OR 1.05 [95%CI 1.02–1.08] per year; p = 0.001) was the only predictor of elevated HbA1c (i.e., ≥39 mmol·mol−1) to reach statistical significance in the multivariate regression model. The median (IQR) DAH30 was 29 (26–30) days in subjects with an HbA1c < 39 mmol·mol−1, 29 (26–29) days in subjects with an HbA1c in the prediabetes range and 29 (28–30) days in patients with undiagnosed DM based on HbA1c. In the multivariate regression model, preoperative HbA1c was not associated with DAH30 in the 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles (p = 0.88, p = 0.60 and p = 0.45, respectively).

4. Discussion

Based on epidemiologic data, we hypothesised that the routine measurement of HbA1c would lead to the discovery of undiagnosed DM in patients aged ≥65 years visiting our preoperative screening clinic. However, we found a low prevalence of undiagnosed DM (3.7%) in this older adult surgical population. Remarkably, 42.9% of patients without a diagnosis of DM had an HbA1c value within the prediabetes range. Other than age, we could not identify any risk factors for elevated HbA1c. We did not detect an association between HbA1c and DAH30 in this study population.
In all cases of DM among the general population, the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) has estimated that 45% are undiagnosed in Europe [7]. One would expect the prevalence of undiagnosed DM in an older adult surgical population to be higher than the prevalence we found in our study population. However, a considerable number of patients seen at the preoperative screening clinic may have already undergone previous blood tests, potentially reducing the prevalence of undiagnosed DM among our surgical population compared to the general population. Several studies reported on the prevalence of undiagnosed DM in patients who planned to undergo surgery based on an HbA1c ≥ 48 mmol·mol−1. The majority of these studies included patients undergoing a specific type of surgery [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41], such as cardiac [32,33,34,35], orthopaedic [36,37] and bariatric surgery [38,39]. In a prospective study conducted in a university hospital in Canada, as much as 7% of patients aged 18 years or older undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery were found to have undiagnosed DM based on their preoperative HbA1c value [27]. This difference in prevalence may be explained by their exclusion of ambulatory surgery, the relatively high number of patients classified as ASA 3–4 and geographical differences. Data from two other observational studies suggest a prevalence of undiagnosed DM similar to the prevalence in our study sample, i.e., 3.9% and 4.3%, despite the broader age range among participants in these studies [2,28]. Although the overall prevalence of DM increases considerably in each incremental age group [23], the proportion of diagnosed DM may be higher in older adults than in younger age groups.
Although the diagnosis of DM is based on either the plasma glucose or HbA1c criteria [12,13,14], the measurement of the HbA1c value is likely the most convenient option in the preoperative assessment clinic, as it does not require fasting and is not affected by factors such as timing, stress or diet. Nonetheless, it is important to note that there is considerable discordance in the diagnosis of DM when comparing the HbA1c and plasma glucose criteria, as these tests measure different aspects of glucose metabolism [33,42]. An HbA1c above the diagnostic threshold may only detect one-third of the cases of undiagnosed DM that would otherwise be identified based on FPG and OGTT testing [43]. This may at least partly explain why the prevalence of undiagnosed DM that we found was lower than we expected based on previous population estimates.
The association between preoperative HbA1c and postoperative outcome, specifically in the surgical patients without a diagnosis of DM, has been examined in several previous studies. Some studies, although not all [35,39,44], have found an association between HbA1c and various postoperative complications [9,45,46,47,48,49], length of hospital stay [50] and even mortality [46] (Table S2). It has been proposed that the risk of certain postoperative complications may be higher in patients with undiagnosed DM compared to patients with a history of DM [9,10,11]. In a retrospective cohort study that included patients undergoing peripheral arterial revascularization, subjects without a diagnosis of DM and an HbA1c above 53 mmol·mol−1 were found to be at a higher risk of amputation and adverse limb events compared to subjects with known DM and a similar HbA1c [9]. In another retrospective analysis, patients with undiagnosed DM were found to have a higher one-year mortality rate after non-cardiac surgery compared to patients with known DM [10]. However, FPG was used besides HbA1c to identify patients with undiagnosed DM in this study [10]. Similar observations have been made in critically ill patients with undiagnosed DM, who seem to have higher rates of dysglycaemia and increased mortality compared to patients with a diagnosis of DM [11]. We found no predictive value of HbA1c in relation to DAH30.
Prediabetes is a heterogeneous condition characterised by glucose values or an HbA1c above the reference interval, yet below the DM diagnostic threshold. The criteria to diagnose prediabetes proposed by major international organisations are not uniform. The ADA and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines have incorporated HbA1c as a means of diagnosing prediabetes [12,51], whereas the IDF and the World Health Organization define prediabetes based on glucose criteria only [23,52]. Prediabetes can progress to type 2 DM. However, prediabetes has no known relevance for the perioperative outcome. This raises the question of whether preoperative screening by HbA1c would contribute to public health, or if one should leave this to primary health care providers. Based on our data, in the Netherlands, the costs of detecting one patient with undiagnosed DM at the preoperative assessment clinic would be around GBP 255 (EUR 300), while it is unknown whether doing so would prevent any potential complications. However, there is some evidence that screening for (pre)diabetes could be effective in terms of long-term health benefits and cost-effectiveness [53].
The major strength of this study is its specific focus on older adult patients undergoing a diverse range of surgical interventions. However, some limitations in the study design should be noted. First, the exclusion of patients with a diagnosis of DM was solely based on the information from their electronic health records, though these records have proven to be reliable in earlier studies [54]. Second, although we implemented routine age-dependent screening of HbA1c in our preoperative assessment clinic, the majority of the patients who satisfied the criteria were not tested, which limited the sample size and may have introduced selection bias by excluding patients who were too ill to attend preoperative assessment or, conversely, were relatively healthy and were thus screened by telephone. Considering that the patients who were screened for HbA1c had a relatively lower ASA score and underwent fewer major surgical procedures compared to those who did not undergo HbA1c screening, we might have underestimated the prevalence of prediabetes and diabetes. Third, although we analysed the association between HbA1c and DAH30, the study was not powered to detect differences in this postoperative outcome. Finally, DAH30 was exclusively based on the hospitalisation data from our centre. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that post-discharge readmissions at other care facilities would have significantly influenced the study outcome, as postoperative patients will be referred to the initial clinic in case of postoperative complications within 30 days.

5. Conclusions

The prevalence of undiagnosed DM in older adult surgical patients is low. Although HbA1c screening revealed a large number of older adult patients with prediabetes, the relevance of this finding in the perioperative setting is uncertain. Considering the burden of DM in the perioperative setting, further studies are needed to identify the groups of surgical patients most at risk for undiagnosed DM. In these high-risk groups, glucose testing may be added to HbA1c screening alone to increase the DM detection rate. Based on our findings and the previous literature, general screening for HbA1c in older adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery appears to be of little value.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jpm14020219/s1, Table S1: Comparison of demographic, clinical and surgical characteristics between patients with and without a recent HbA1c; Table S2: Other observational studies reporting on the association between HbA1c and postoperative outcome in (a subgroup of) patients without a diagnosis of diabetes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.v.W., M.L.v.Z. and A.H.H.; methodology, R.v.W., A.H.H. and J.H.; validation, R.v.W. and M.L.v.Z. formal analysis, R.v.W.; investigation, M.L.v.Z. and A.H.H.; writing—original draft preparation, R.v.W.; writing—review and editing, A.H.H., J.H., B.P., J.H.D. and M.L.v.Z.; supervision, J.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the AMC (decision W19_044 #19.067) on 14 February 2019.

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

R.v.W., M.L.v.Z. and J.H.D. have no conflicts of interest regarding the submitted work. J.H. has received research support from NovoNordisk and received a grant from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and ZonMw. B.P. has received research support from GE Healthcare, Air Liquide and NovoNordisk; he received grants from SCA, ESA and ZonMW and has contributed to the advisory boards of Laborattoire Aguettant France and Sensium Healthcare UK. A.H.H. has received research support from NovoNordisk and the European Society of Anaesthesiology and a grant from ZonMW.

References

  1. de Vries, F.E.E.; Gans, S.L.; Solomkin, J.S.; Allegranzi, B.; Egger, M.; Dellinger, E.P.; A Boermeester, M. Meta-analysis of lower perioperative blood glucose target levels for reduction of surgical-site infection. Br. J. Surg. 2017, 104, e95–e105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yong, P.H.; Weinberg, L.; Torkamani, N.; Churilov, L.; Robbins, R.J.; Ma, R.; Bellomo, R.; Lam, Q.T.; Burns, J.D.; Hart, G.K.; et al. The Presence of Diabetes and Higher HbA1c Are Independently Associated with Adverse Outcomes after Surgery. Diabetes Care 2018, 41, 1172–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Frisch, A.; Chandra, P.; Smiley, D.; Peng, L.; Rizzo, M.; Gatcliffe, C.; Hudson, M.; Mendoza, J.; Johnson, R.; Lin, E.; et al. Prevalence and clinical outcome of hyperglycemia in the perioperative period in noncardiac surgery. Diabetes Care 2010, 33, 1783–1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kotagal, M.; Symons, R.G.; Hirsch, I.B.; Umpierrez, G.E.; Dellinger, E.P.; Farrokhi, E.T.; Flum, D.R. Perioperative hyperglycemia and risk of adverse events among patients with and without diabetes. Ann. Surg. 2015, 261, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Gandhi, G.Y.; Nuttall, G.A.; Abel, M.D.; Mullany, C.J.; Schaff, H.V.; Williams, B.A.; Schrader, L.M.; Rizza, R.A.; McMahon, M.M. Intraoperative hyperglycemia and perioperative outcomes in cardiac surgery patients. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2005, 80, 862–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Porta, M.; Curletto, G.; Cipullo, D.; de la Longrais, R.R.; Trento, M.; Passera, P.; Taulaigo, A.V.; Di Miceli, S.; Cenci, A.; Dalmasso, P.; et al. Estimating the delay between onset and diagnosis of type 2 diabetes from the time course of retinopathy prevalence. Diabetes Care 2014, 37, 1668–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ogurtsova, K.; Guariguata, L.; Barengo, N.C.; Ruiz, P.L.-D.; Sacre, J.W.; Karuranga, S.; Sun, H.; Boyko, E.J.; Magliano, D.J. IDF diabetes Atlas: Global estimates of undiagnosed diabetes in adults for 2021. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2022, 183, 109118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Umpierrez, G.E.; Isaacs, S.D.; Bazargan, N.; You, X.; Thaler, L.M.; Kitabchi, A.E. Hyperglycemia: An independent marker of in-hospital mortality in patients with undiagnosed diabetes. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2002, 87, 978–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Arya, S.; Binney, Z.O.; Khakharia, A.; Long, C.A.; Brewster, L.P.; Wilson, P.W.; Jordan, W.D.; Duwayri, Y. High hemoglobin A1c associated with increased adverse limb events in peripheral arterial disease patients undergoing revascularization. J. Vasc. Surg. 2018, 67, 217–228.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Teo, W.W.; Ti, L.K.; Lean, L.L.; Seet, E.; Paramasivan, A.; Liu, W.; Wang, J.; Chua, V.; Liew, L.Q. The neglected perioperative population of undiagnosed diabetics—A retrospective cohort study. BMC Surg. 2020, 20, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Carpenter, D.L.; Gregg, S.R.; Xu, K.; Buchman, T.G.; Coopersmith, C.M. Prevalence and Impact of Unknown Diabetes in the ICU. Crit. Care Med. 2015, 43, e541–e550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2020. Diabetes Care 2020, 43 (Suppl. S14), LP-S31.
  13. WHO. Use of Glycated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) in Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus: Abbreviated Report of a WHO Consultation. 2011. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/70523 (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  14. Cosentino, F.; Grant, P.; Aboyans, V.; Bailey, C.J.; Ceriello, A.; Delgado, V. 2019 ESC Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD. The Task Force for diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Eur. Heart J. 2020, 41, 255–323. [Google Scholar]
  15. van den Boom, W.; Schroeder, R.A.; Manning, M.W.; Setji, T.L.; Fiestan, G.-O.; Dunson, D.B. Effect of A1C and Glucose on Postoperative Mortality in Noncardiac and Cardiac Surgeries. Diabetes Care 2018, 41, 782–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Shohat, N.; Muhsen, K.; Gilat, R.; Rondon, A.J.; Chen, A.F.; Parvizi, J. Inadequate Glycemic Control Is Associated with Increased Surgical Site Infection in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 2312–2321.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Wang, J.; Luo, X.; Jin, X.; Lv, M.; Li, X.; Dou, J.; Zeng, J.; An, P.; Chen, Y.; Chen, K.; et al. Effects of Preoperative HbA1c Levels on the Postoperative Outcomes of Coronary Artery Disease Surgical Treatment in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Nondiabetic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Diabetes Res. 2020, 2020, 3547491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Underwood, P.; Askari, R.; Hurwitz, S.; Chamarthi, B.; Garg, R. Preoperative A1C and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Diabetes Undergoing Major Noncardiac Surgical Procedures. Diabetes Care 2014, 37, 611–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Dronge, A.S.; Perkal, M.F.; Kancir, S.; Concato, J.; Aslan, M.; Rosenthal, R.A. Long-term Glycemic Control and Postoperative Infectious Complications. Arch. Surg. 2006, 141, 375–380, discussion 380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care. Management of Adults with Diabetes Undergoing Surgery and Elective Procedures: Improving Standards (JBDS-IP Guideline); Association of British Clinical Diabetologists: Leeds, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lazar, H.L.; McDonnell, M.; Chipkin, S.R.; Furnary, A.P.; Engelman, R.M.; Sadhu, A.R.; Bridges, C.R.; Haan, C.K.; Svedjeholm, R.; Taegtmeyer, H.; et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Practice Guideline Series: Blood Glucose Management During Adult Cardiac Surgery. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2009, 87, 663–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Halvorsen, S.; Mehilli, J.; Cassese, S.; Hall, T.S.; Abdelhamid, M.; Barbato, E.; De Hert, S.; de Laval, I.; Geisler, T.; Hinterbuchner, L.; et al. 2022 ESC Guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Eur. Heart J. 2022, 43, 3826–3924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Williams, R.; Colagiuri, S.; Chan, J.; Almutairi, R.; Montoya, P.A.; Basit, A.; Beran, D.; Besançon, S.; Bommer, C.; Borgnakk, W.; et al. IDF Diabetes Atlas, 9th ed.; International Diabetes Federation: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  24. Von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2008, 61, 344–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Myles, P.S.; A Shulman, M.; Heritier, S.; Wallace, S.; McIlroy, D.R.; McCluskey, S.; Sillar, I.; Forbes, A. Validation of days at home as an outcome measure after surgery: A prospective cohort study in Australia. BMJ Open 2017, 7, e015828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bell, M.; Eriksson, L.I.; Svensson, T.; Hallqvist, L.; Granath, F.; Reilly, J.; Myles, P.S. Days at Home after Surgery: An Integrated and Efficient Outcome Measure for Clinical Trials and Quality Assurance. EClinicalMedicine 2019, 11, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Yang, M.H.; Jaeger, M.; Baxter, M.; VanDenKerkhof, E.; van Vlymen, J. Postoperative dysglycemia in elective non-diabetic surgical patients: A prospective observational study. Can. J. Anaesth. 2016, 63, 1319–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Koumpan, Y.; VanDenKerkhof, E.; van Vlymen, J. An observational cohort study to assess glycosylated hemoglobin screening for elective surgical patients. Can. J. Anaesth. 2014, 61, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Dixon, W.; Massey, F. Introduction to Statistical Analysis; McGraw-Hill: New York City, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  30. Clopper, C.J.; Pearson, E.S. The Use of Confidence or Fiducial Limits Illustrated in the Case of the Binomial. Biometrika 1934, 26, 404–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Koenker, R.; Bassett, G. Regression Quantiles. Econometrica 1978, 46, 33–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bardia, A.; Khabbaz, K.; Mueller, A.; Mathur, P.; Novack, V.; Talmor, D.; Subramaniam, B. The Association between Preoperative Hemoglobin A1C and Postoperative Glycemic Variability on 30-Day Major Adverse Outcomes Following Isolated Cardiac Valvular Surgery. Anesth. Analg. 2017, 124, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Gianchandani, R.Y.; Saberi, S.; Zrull, C.A.; Patil, P.V.; Jha, L.; Kling-Colson, S.C.; Gandia, K.G.; DuBois, E.C.; Plunkett, C.D.; Bodnar, T.W.; et al. Evaluation of Hemoglobin A1c Criteria to Assess Preoperative Diabetes Risk in Cardiac Surgery Patients. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 2011, 13, 1249–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. McGinn, J.T.; A Shariff, M.; Bhat, T.M.; Azab, B.; Molloy, W.J.; Quattrocchi, E.; Farid, M.; Eichorn, A.M.; Dlugacz, Y.D.; A Silverman, R. Prevalence of Dysglycemia Among Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Patients with No Previous Diabetic History. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2011, 6, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Narayan, P.; Kshirsagar, S.N.; Mandal, C.K.; Ghorai, P.A.; Rao, Y.M.; Das, D.; Saha, A.; Chowdhury, S.R.; Rupert, E.; Das, M. Preoperative Glycosylated Hemoglobin: A Risk Factor for Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2017, 104, 606–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Capozzi, J.D.; Lepkowsky, E.R.; Callari, M.M.; Jordan, E.T.; Koenig, J.A.; Sirounian, G.H. The Prevalence of Diabetes Mellitus and Routine Hemoglobin A1c Screening in Elective Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients. J. Arthroplast. 2017, 32, 304–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Ekinci, E.I.; Kong, A.; Churilov, L.; Nanayakkara, N.; Chiu, W.L.; Sumithran, P.; Djukiadmodjo, F.; Premaratne, E.; Owen-Jones, E.; Hart, G.K.; et al. Using Automated HbA1c Testing to Detect Diabetes Mellitus in Orthopedic Inpatients and Its Effect on Outcomes. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0168471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Stenberg, E.; Szabo, E.; Näslund, I. Is glycosylated hemoglobin A1 c associated with increased risk for severe early postoperative complications in nondiabetics after laparoscopic gastric bypass? Surg. Obes. Relat. Dis. Off. J. Am. Soc. Bariatr. Surg. 2014, 10, 801–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Wysocki, M.; Walędziak, M.; Hady, H.R.; Czerniawski, M.; Proczko-Stepaniak, M.; Szymański, M.; Dowgiałło-Wnukiewicz, N.; Kozera, P.; Szeliga, J.; Orłowski, M.; et al. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Preoperative HbA1c Level Have no Consequence on Outcomes after Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy—A Cohort Study. Obes. Surg. 2019, 29, 2957–2962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Goodenough, C.J.; Liang, M.K.; Nguyen, M.T.; Nguyen, D.H.; Holihan, J.L.; Alawadi, Z.M.; Roth, J.S.; Wray, C.J.; Ko, T.C.; Kao, L.S. Preoperative Glycosylated Hemoglobin and Postoperative Glucose Together Predict Major Complications after Abdominal Surgery. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2015, 221, 854–861e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Hjellestad, I.D.; Søfteland, E.; Husebye, E.S.; Jonung, T. HbA1c predicts long-term postoperative mortality in patients with unknown glycemic status at admission for vascular surgery: An exploratory study. J. Diabetes 2019, 11, 466–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Carson, A.P.; Reynolds, K.; Fonseca, V.A.; Muntner, P. Comparison of A1C and Fasting Glucose Criteria to Diagnose Diabetes Among U.S. Adults. Diabetes Care 2010, 33, 95–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cowie, C.C.; Rust, K.F.; Byrd-Holt, D.D.; Gregg, E.W.; Ford, E.S.; Geiss, L.S.; Bainbridge, K.E.; Fradkin, J.E. Prevalence of Diabetes and High Risk for Diabetes Using A1C Criteria in the U.S. Population in 1988–2006. Diabetes Care 2010, 33, 562–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Iavazzo, C.; McComiskey, M.; Datta, M.; Ryan, M.; Kiernan, J.; Winter-Roach, B.; Slade, R.; Smith, M. Preoperative HBA1c and risk of postoperative complications in patients with gynaecological cancer. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2016, 294, 161–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gustafsson, U.O.; A Thorell, A.; Soop, M.; O Ljungqvist, O.; Nygren, J. Haemoglobin A1c as a predictor of postoperative hyperglycaemia and complications after major colorectal surgery. Br. J. Surg. 2009, 96, 1358–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hudson, C.C.C.; for members of the Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology Research Endeavors (C.A.R.E.) Group; Welsby, I.J.; Phillips-Bute, B.; Mathew, J.P.; Lutz, A.; Hughes, G.C.; Stafford-Smith, M. Glycosylated hemoglobin levels and outcome in non-diabetic cardiac surgery patients. Can. J. Anaesth. 2010, 57, 565–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Nicolini, F.; Santarpino, G.; Gatti, G.; Reichart, D.; Onorati, F.; Faggian, G.; Dalén, M.; Khodabandeh, S.; Fischlein, T.; Maselli, D.; et al. Utility of glycated hemoglobin screening in patients undergoing elective coronary artery surgery: Prospective, cohort study from the E-CABG registry. Int. J. Surg. 2018, 53, 354–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Kocogulları, C.U.; Kunt, A.T.; Aksoy, R.; Duzyol, C.; Parlar, H.; Saskın, H.; Fındık, O. Hemoglobin A1c Levels Predicts Acute Kidney Injury after Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery in Non-Diabetic Patients. Rev. Bras. Cir. Cardiovasc. 2017, 32, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Gatti, G.; Perrotti, A.; Reichart, D.; Maschietto, L.; Onorati, F.; Chocron, S.; Dalén, M.; Svenarud, P.; Faggian, G.; Santarpino, G.; et al. Glycated Hemoglobin and Risk of Sternal Wound Infection After Isolated Coronary Surgery. Circ. J. 2016, 81, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Walid, M.S.; Newman, B.F.; Yelverton, J.C.; Nutter, J.P.; Ajjan, M.; Robinson, J.S. Prevalence of previously unknown elevation of glycosylated hemoglobin in spine surgery patients and impact on length of stay and total cost. J. Hosp. Med. 2010, 5, E10–E14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Type 2 Diabetes: Prevention in People at High Risk (NICE Guideline PH38), (Update 2017); National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Mancchester, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  52. World Health Organization (WHO). International Diabetes Federation. Definition and Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus and Intermediate Hyperglycaemia : Report of a WHO/IDF Consultation; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kahn, R.; Alperin, P.; Eddy, D.; Borch-Johnsen, K.; Buse, J.; Feigelman, J.; Gregg, E.; Holman, R.R.; Kirkman, M.S.; Stern, M.; et al. Age at initiation and frequency of screening to detect type 2 diabetes: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Lancet 2010, 375, 1365–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hulst, A.H.; Polderman, J.A.W.; Kooij, F.O.; Vittali, D.; Lirk, P.; Hollmann, M.W.; DeVries, J.H.; Preckel, B.; Hermanides, J. Comparison of perioperative glucose regulation in patients with type 1 vs type 2 diabetes mellitus: A retrospective cross-sectional study. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2019, 63, 314–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jpm 14 00219 g001
Figure 1. CONSORT diagram of patient recruitment.
Figure 1. CONSORT diagram of patient recruitment.
Jpm 14 00219 g001
Table 1. Demographic, clinical and surgical characteristics.
Table 1. Demographic, clinical and surgical characteristics.
CharacteristicAll Patients
(n = 697)		No DM
(n = 372)		Prediabetes
(n = 299)		Undiagnosed DM
(n = 26)
Age, years73 (6)72 (5)73 (6)76 (7)
Sex, female, n323 (46.3%)169 (45.4%)143 (47.8%)11 (42.3%)
BMI, kg m−226 (4)26 (4)26 (4)27 (4)
ASA score, n
1 or 2473 (67.9%)260 (69.9%)197 (65.9%)16 (61.5%)
≥3224 (32.1%)112 (30.1%)102 (34.1%)10 (38.5%)
Maximum MET, n
<7240 (39.5%)126 (38.8%)104 (39.8%)10 (47.6%)
≥7367 (60.5%)199 (61.2%)157 (60.2%)11 (52.4%)
Cardiovascular history, n
HT317 (45.5%)160 (43.0%)141 (47.2%)16 (61.5%)
IHD96 (13.8%)40 (10.8%)50 (16.7%)6 (23.1%)
CVA/TIA76 (10.9%)43 (11.6%)29 (9.7%)4 (15.4%)
PVD25 (3.6%)11 (3.0%)14 (4.7%)0
Surgical specialty, n
Gynaecology49 (7.0%)26 (7.0%)22 (7.4%)1 (3.8%)
Gastrointestinal95 (13.6%)54 (14.5%)38 (12.7%)3 (11.5%)
Orthopaedic106 (15.2%)62 (16.7%)40 (13.4%)4 (15.4%)
Urology62 (8.9%)36 (9.7%)23 (7.7%)3 (11.5%)
Neurosurgery37 (5.3%)19 (5.1%)16 (5.4%)2 (7.7%)
Other349 (49.9%)175 (47.0%)160 (53.5%)13 (50.0%)
Surgical risk, n
Minor418 (60.0%)224 (60.2%)177 (59.2%)17 (65.4%)
Moderate220 (31.6%)121 (32.5%)92 (30.8%)7 (26.9%)
Major59 (8.5%)27 (7.3%)30 (10.0%)2 (7.7%)
Anaesthesia type, n
General594 (85.3%)319 (85.8%)253 (84.6%)22 (88.0%)
Neuraxial36 (5.2%)20 (5.4%)15 (5.0%)1 (4.0%)
PNB24 (3.4%)15 (4.0%)9 (3.0%)0
Sedation42 (6.0%)18 (4.9%)22 (7.4%)2 (8.0%)
Values are number (proportion) or mean (SD). HT, hypertension; IHD, ischemic heart disease; CVA/TIA, cerebrovascular accident and/or transient ischaemic attack; MET, metabolic equivalent of task; PNB, peripheral nerve block; PVD, peripheral vascular disease.
Table 2. Prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes.
Table 2. Prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes.
HbA1c (mmol mol−1)HbA1c (%)nPrevalence (%)95% Confidence Interval
No diabetes<39 <5.7%37253.449.6 to 57.1
Prediabetes≥39 and <48 5.7–6.5%29942.939.2 to 46.7
Diabetes≥486.5%263.72.5 to 5.4
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

van Wilpe, R.; van Zuylen, M.L.; Hermanides, J.; DeVries, J.H.; Preckel, B.; Hulst, A.H. Preoperative Glycosylated Haemoglobin Screening to Identify Older Adult Patients with Undiagnosed Diabetes Mellitus—A Retrospective Cohort Study. J. Pers. Med. 2024, 14, 219. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14020219

AMA Style

van Wilpe R, van Zuylen ML, Hermanides J, DeVries JH, Preckel B, Hulst AH. Preoperative Glycosylated Haemoglobin Screening to Identify Older Adult Patients with Undiagnosed Diabetes Mellitus—A Retrospective Cohort Study. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2024; 14(2):219. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14020219

Chicago/Turabian Style

van Wilpe, Robert, Mark L. van Zuylen, Jeroen Hermanides, J. Hans DeVries, Benedikt Preckel, and Abraham H. Hulst. 2024. "Preoperative Glycosylated Haemoglobin Screening to Identify Older Adult Patients with Undiagnosed Diabetes Mellitus—A Retrospective Cohort Study" Journal of Personalized Medicine 14, no. 2: 219. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14020219

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop