Perioperative management of diabetes

Diabetes is a complex, chronic metabolic disorder affecting approximately 9.3% of the adult population with the estimated number of adults with diabetes worldwide having more than tripled since 2000. This increase has largely been attributed to global urbanization and lifestyle changes. Diabetes affects 10–15% of the surgical population. These patients are frequently elderly, have complex medical co-morbidities and present for both high-risk elective and emergency surgery. This multisystem disease poses a significant challenge to both anaesthesia and surgery with patients with diabetes demonstrating higher morbidity and mortality rates compared to their non-diabetic counterparts. It is crucial that good glycaemic control is maintained throughout the perioperative period as this has been shown to correlate with positive patient outcomes. It is well-recognized that a co-ordinated, multidisciplinary approach aimed at optimizing every point in the patient pathway from GP referral to post-discharge care is required to obtain the best outcomes for the surgical patient with diabetes. The anaesthetist has a key role in the perioperative diabetes multidisciplinary team. Patients themselves are well experienced in manging their own diabetes and should be involved in doing so whenever possible.     

A randomized pilot study in Type 1 diabetes complicated by severe hypoglycaemia, comparing rigorous hypoglycaemia avoidance with insulin analogue therapy, CSII or education alone.

AIM: To determine potential for amelioration of recurrent severe hypoglycaemia without worsening in overall control in individuals with long-standing Type 1 diabetes (T1DM). METHODS: Twenty-one people with T1DM characterized by altered hypoglycaemia awareness and debilitating severe hypoglycaemia were randomized in a pilot 24-week prospective study to optimized analogue therapy (ANALOGUE; lispro/glargine); continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy (CSII; lispro); or re-education with relaxation of blood glucose targets on existing conventional insulin regimen (EDUCATION). Glycaemic profiles and duration of biochemical hypoglycaemia were measured by continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring and self-monitored blood glucose. RESULTS: Further severe hypoglycaemia was prevented in five participants (71%) in each group (P = 0.06). Incidence of severe hypoglycaemia was: 0.6 (ANALOGUE), 0.9 (CSII), and 3.7 (EDUCATION) episodes per patient year. Restoration of hypoglycaemia awareness was confirmed by validated questionnaire in three (43%) ANALOGUE, four (57%) CSII and five (71%) EDUCATION patients. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was significantly improved in the ANALOGUE group between weeks 0 and 24 (8.6 +/- 1.1 vs. 7.6 +/- 0.8%; P = 0.04 for change). Non-significant improvement was seen in the CSII group (8.5 +/- 1.9 vs. 7.4 +/- 1.0%; P = 0.06). No change in HbA1c was seen in the EDUCATION group (8.5 +/- 1.1 vs. 8.3 +/- 1.0%; P = 0.54). There were no episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis or any other adverse events in any group. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot randomized trial comparing optimized ANALOGUE, CSII or EDUCATION alone in unselected individuals with recurrent severe hypoglycaemia, we show potential for restoring hypoglycaemia awareness and preventing further severe hypoglycaemia with concomitant improvement in glycaemic control in ANALOGUE and CSII groups.     

The selection of children and adolescents for treatment with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII)

Abstract:  Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) was first introduced as a mode of treatment for persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in the late 1970s. Since that time, there have been many reports and reviews of this modality of treatment in adults and adolescents with diabetes and several reports of the use of this technology in the treatment of children with T1DM. Conflicting data have accumulated on the consistency of improvement in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and in the frequency of complications, most significantly that of hypoglycemia. Some studies report the findings of controlled randomized studies, but many of these studies were conducted on small numbers of highly selected patients. Some studies are prospective but not randomized, where subjects pre-CSII serve as their own controls. Yet other studies are retrospective reviews of children and adolescents who have been treated with CSII. This paper reviews what has been learned about patient selection and outcomes of CSII treatment, with the goal of outlining steps in the selection and preparation of patients for CSII that will facilitate optimum outcome.     

胰岛素泵治疗糖尿病的临床研究

目的 比较不同胰岛素给药方法对高血糖治疗的差异。方法 ６４例需胰岛素治疗的高血糖病人住院进行了二种胰岛素强化治疗：（１）胰岛素泵皮下注射注治疗：（２）多次皮下注射胰２岛素治疗。二组治疗靶血糖值均为三餐前及睡前末梢血糖≥３．６ｍｍｏｌ／Ｌ且≤７．２ｍｍｏｌ／Ｌ,并至少二天。结果 二种治疗血糖中位数有显著性（ＣＳⅡ：７．１,ＭＳⅡ：７．９,Ｐ〈０．００１）,平均高血糖控制天数,胰岛素用量均有显著性差异     

门冬胰岛素强化治疗2型糖尿病疗效观察

目的：观察超短效人胰岛素类似物与短效人胰岛素诺和灵R（Novolin R）强化治疗2型糖尿病的疗效差异。方法：将90例2型糖尿病病人随机分为2组，进行胰岛素泵持续皮下输注治疗两周，观察两组治疗前后血糖值，血糖达标时间，胰岛素用量，低血糖发生率。结果：门冬胰岛素（insulin aspart）组与诺和灵R组血糖得到同样程度的改善，但门冬胰岛素组血糖达标时间短，胰岛素用量少，两组均无低血糖发生。结论：门冬胰岛素在胰岛素泵强化降糖治疗更具优势。     

胰岛素泵持续皮下输注与多次皮下注射胰岛素强化治疗2型糖尿病的疗效比较

目的观察胰岛素泵持续皮下注射胰岛素及多次皮下注射胰岛素对2型糖尿病的治疗疗效及安全性。方法 80例2型糖尿患者住院进行两种胰岛素强化治疗:①CSII组:42例;②MSII组:38例。二组治疗血糖控制范围为3.6～8.2mmol/L(血糖仪测定末梢血),至少稳定48h。结果两种治疗方法血糖中位数差异有统计学意义(CSII:7.0,MSII:7.8,P<0.01),平均高血糖控制天数[CSII:(5.71±1.71)d,MSII:(20.52±7.68)d,P<0.01],胰岛素用量[CSII:(0.61±0.2)U/(kg.d),MSII:(0.69±0.2)U/(kg.d),P<0.01],住院时间[CSII:(12.47±4.42)d,MSII:(31.43±9.47)d,P<0.01]均有显著性差异;而住院费用[CSII:(2787±1475)元,MSII:(3756±2867)元,P<0.05]有统计学意义,且CSII组低糖发生率低于MSII组[(0.8±1.2)次/人Vs(1.7±2.3)次/人,P<0.05]。结论 CSII治疗较MSII更有效、更便捷地控制高血糖,减少低血糖发生,安全性更高。     

胰岛素泵短期强化治疗2型糖尿病的护理研究

目的比较持续皮下胰岛素输注(continue subcutaneous insulinCSⅡ)及多次皮下注射胰岛素(multiple subcutaneous insulinMSⅡ)两种方法治疗2型糖尿病的临床疗效、患者生活质量及护理强度。方法采用对照研究方法,探讨CSⅡ和MSⅡ两种治疗方法在控制血糖、低血糖的发生率、注射区皮肤瘙痒及皮下结节出现频数以及病人生活质量、护理工作强度的差异。结果CSⅡ的临床疗效、患者生活质量明显优于MSⅡ,CSⅡ的护理强度、不良反应明显低于MSⅡ。结论CSⅡ治疗有效地降低餐后2小时血糖;减少了低血糖的发生,提高了病人的生活质量,降低了护理人员的工作强度。     

Optimizing insulin pump therapy: the potential advantages of using a structured diabetes management program

Use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy improves glycemic control, reduces hypoglycemia and increases treatment satisfaction in individuals with diabetes. As a number of patient- and clinician-related factors can hinder the effectiveness and optimal usage of CSII therapy, new approaches are needed to address these obstacles.

Ceriello and colleagues recently proposed a model of care that incorporates the collaborative use of structured SMBG into a formal approach to personalized diabetes management within all diabetes populations. We adapted this model for use in CSII-treated patients in order to enable the implementation of a workflow structure that enhances patient–physician communication and supports patients’ diabetes self-management skills.

We recognize that time constraints and current reimbursement policies pose significant challenges to healthcare providers integrating the Personalised Diabetes Management (PDM) process into clinical practice. We believe, however, that the time invested in modifying practice workflow and learning to apply the various steps of the PDM process will be offset by improved workflow and more effective patient consultations. This article describes how to implement PDM into clinical practice as a systematic, standardized process that can optimize CSII therapy.     

Telemedicine and type 1 diabetes: Is technology per se sufficient to improve glycaemic control?

AimIn the TELEDIAB-1 study, the Diabeo system (a smartphone coupled to a website) improved HbA_1c by 0.9% vs controls in patients with chronic, poorly controlled type 1 diabetes. The system provided two main functions: automated advice on the insulin doses required; and remote monitoring by teleconsultation. The question is: how much did each function contribute to the improvement in HbA_1c?MethodsEach patient received a smartphone with an insulin dose advisor (IDA) and with (G3 group) or without (G2 group) the telemonitoring/teleconsultation function. Patients were classified as “high users” if the proportion of “informed” meals using the IDA exceeded 67% (median) and as “low users” if not. Also analyzed was the respective impact of the IDA function and teleconsultations on the final HbA_1c levels.ResultsAmong the high users, the proportion of informed meals remained stable from baseline to the end of the study 6 months later (from 78.1 ± 21.5% to 73.8 ± 25.1%; P = 0.107), but decreased in the low users (from 36.6 ± 29.4% to 26.7 ± 28.4%; P = 0.005). As expected, HbA_1c improved in high users from 8.7% [range: 8.3–9.2%] to 8.2% [range: 7.8–8.7%] in patients with (n = 26) vs without (n = 30) the benefit of telemonitoring/teleconsultation (−0.49 ± 0.60% vs −0.52 ± 0.73%, respectively; P = 0.879). However, although HbA_1c also improved in low users from 9.0% [8.5–10.1] to 8.5% [7.9–9.6], those receiving support via teleconsultation tended to show greater improvement than the others (−0.93 ± 0.97 vs −0.46 ± 1.05, respectively; P = 0.084).ConclusionThe Diabeo system improved glycaemic control in both high and low users who avidly used the IDA function, while the greatest improvement was seen in the low users who had the motivational support of teleconsultations.     

Survival assessment of the extended-wear insulin infusion set featuring lantern technology in adults with type 1 diabetes by the glucose clamp technique

Maintaining good glycaemic control with the same infusion set for longer than 3 days may improve the quality of life of insulin pump users. The aim of the current study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the novel, extended-wear infusion set over 7 days of wear in adults with type 1 diabetes. Sixteen participants completed three identical 8-hour euglycaemic clamp experiments on Days 1, 4 and 7 of infusion set wear. Between the experiments, the participants were discharged home for routine diabetes management while wearing the same extended-wear infusion set throughout the study. Time to reach the maximum glucose infusion rate (T_GIRmax) on Day 7 was reduced by 67% compared with Day 1 (p < .001). The corresponding area under the glucose infusion rate curve (AUC_GIR) was comparable for the first 2 h of the clamp (p = .891) but decreased by 28% over time (p < .008). While the extent of insulin absorption decreased with prolonged wear, it was accompanied by an increase in insulin absorption rate. The infusion set survival rate was 100% without leakages, occlusion alarms, severe hypoglycaemia or ketoacidosis. The extended-wear infusion set proved safe and effective during prolonged wear in real-life conditions.