The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Perioperative glycemic control and the risk of infectious complications in a cohort of adults with diabetes.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although hyperglycemia is hypothesized to increase the short-term risk of infection, this hypothesis has not been well tested in a clinical setting. This study was designed to assess the relationship of perioperative glycemic control to the subsequent risk of infectious complications. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 411 adults with diabetes who underwent coronary artery surgery from 1990 to 1995 in the cardiac surgery service of an urban university hospital were included in a nonconcurrent prospective cohort study based on chart review. Perioperative glycemic control was characterized by the mean of six capillary glucose measurements taken during the 36-h interval following surgery. The major outcomes studied were infections of leg and chest wounds, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections. RESULTS: Mean postoperative glucose levels ranged from 121 to 352 mg/dl and were divided into quartiles: quartile 1 (121-206 mg/dl), quartile 2 (207-229 mg/dl), quartile 3 (230-252 mg/dl), and quartile 4 (253352 mg/dl). After simultaneous adjustment for age, sex, race, underlying comorbidity, acute severity of illness, and the length of the stay in the surgical intensive care unit, patients with higher mean capillary glucose readings were at increased risk of developing infections. Compared with people in the lowest quartile of postoperative glucose, those in quartiles 2 (relative odds of infection [95% CI] = 1.17 [0.57-2.40]), 3 (1.86 [0.94-3.68]), and 4 (1.78 [0.86-3.47]) were at progressively higher risk for infection (P = 0.05 for trend). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with diabetes who undergo coronary artery surgery, postoperative hyperglycemia is an independent predictor of short-term infectious complications. Physicians should consider a glucose concentration target of < or =200 mg/dl to reduce the risk of infection.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2009
American Diabetes Association (2009) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc09-s013 · Cited by 2,167
ESPEN guidelines on parenteral nutrition: intensive care
Singer, P., Berger, M. M., Van den Berghe, G., Biolo, G., Calder, P., Forbes, A., Griffiths, R., Kreyman, G., Leverve, X., & Pichard, C. (2009) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2009.04.024 · Cited by 1,907
Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes–2006
American Diabetes Association (2006) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.29.s1.06.s4 · Cited by 1,885
Anderson, J. L., Adams, C. D., Antman, E. M., Bridges, C. R., Califf, R. M., Casey, D. E., Chavey, W. E., Fesmire, F. M., Hochman, J. S., Levin, T. N., et al. (2007) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.02.013 · Cited by 1,510
Moghissi, E. S., Korytkowski, M. T., DiNardo, M., Einhorn, D., Hellman, R., Hirsch, I. B., Inzucchi, S. E., Ismail-Beigi, F., Kirkman, M. S., & Umpierrez, G. E. (2009) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc09-9029 · Cited by 1,444
Metadata
- Authors
- Golden, S. H., Peart-Vigilance, C., Kao, W. H., & Brancati, F. L.
- Venue
- Diabetes Care
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 1999-09-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1408-1414
- ISSN
- 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-5548
- OpenAlex
- W1992255868
- Cited by
- 549
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Perioperative glycemic control and the risk of infectious complications in a cohort of adults with diabetes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/diacare.22.9.1408
- The paper
- Golden, S. H., Peart-Vigilance, C., Kao, W. H., & Brancati, F. L. (1999). Perioperative glycemic control and the risk of infectious complications in a cohort of adults with diabetes. Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.22.9.1408
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.