Henrike Janssen,Priyanthi Dias,Sanjali Ahuja,Saja Alharbi,Louise Hiller,Kamran Khan,Karthik Iyer,Ashok Sundar,Islam Abousharkh,Caroline Thomas,Shaman Jhanji,Nick S Oliver,Gareth L Ackland,
{"title":"Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring during noncardiac surgery: a prospective, blinded observational multicentre cohort study.","authors":"Henrike Janssen,Priyanthi Dias,Sanjali Ahuja,Saja Alharbi,Louise Hiller,Kamran Khan,Karthik Iyer,Ashok Sundar,Islam Abousharkh,Caroline Thomas,Shaman Jhanji,Nick S Oliver,Gareth L Ackland, ","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2025.05.057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nHyperglycaemia after noncardiac surgery is rarely detected outside of the critical care environment, yet occurs commonly and is associated with excess complications including infections and myocardial injury. Systematic, prospectively collected data regarding the accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring commenced immediately before surgery and throughout the early perioperative period are lacking.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nWe prospectively enrolled patients aged >50 yr undergoing noncardiac surgery who required at least 24 h of hospital stay. We used real-time continuous glucose monitoring (Dexcom G7 sensor, placed in the upper outer arm) (Dexcom, San Diego, CA, USA) with reference values from arterial blood glucose measurements by amperometry. The primary outcome was the overall mean difference (bias) before surgery, at end of surgery, and 24 h after surgery (Bland-Altman analysis). Secondary outcomes included the mean absolute relative difference and surveillance error grid analyses.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nWe compared paired blood (73% arterial) and continuous glucose monitoring glucose values at each prespecified timepoint in 118 participants (64/118 [54%] female; mean age: 66 [range: 51-89] yr; 25% with diabetes mellitus). The overall bias between continuous glucose monitoring and blood glucose from measurements at each of the three timepoints in the first 24 h after induction of anaesthesia was 0.38 mM (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.23-0.53; n=340 paired readings). Bias decreased from before the start of surgery (1.08 mM [95% CI: 0.87-1.29]; n=116) to 0.15 mM at the end of surgery (95% CI: -0.15 to 0.46; n=113). Mean absolute relative difference ranged from 12.0% to 18.3%. Error grid analyses found that >98% continuous glucose monitoring values were within acceptable risk ranges.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nThe accuracy of state-of-the-art continuous glucose monitoring is sufficient for perioperative use and could enhance perioperative surveillance of dysglycaemia.\r\n\r\nCLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION\r\nISRCTN46862025.","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":"704 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2025.05.057","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Hyperglycaemia after noncardiac surgery is rarely detected outside of the critical care environment, yet occurs commonly and is associated with excess complications including infections and myocardial injury. Systematic, prospectively collected data regarding the accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring commenced immediately before surgery and throughout the early perioperative period are lacking.
METHODS
We prospectively enrolled patients aged >50 yr undergoing noncardiac surgery who required at least 24 h of hospital stay. We used real-time continuous glucose monitoring (Dexcom G7 sensor, placed in the upper outer arm) (Dexcom, San Diego, CA, USA) with reference values from arterial blood glucose measurements by amperometry. The primary outcome was the overall mean difference (bias) before surgery, at end of surgery, and 24 h after surgery (Bland-Altman analysis). Secondary outcomes included the mean absolute relative difference and surveillance error grid analyses.
RESULTS
We compared paired blood (73% arterial) and continuous glucose monitoring glucose values at each prespecified timepoint in 118 participants (64/118 [54%] female; mean age: 66 [range: 51-89] yr; 25% with diabetes mellitus). The overall bias between continuous glucose monitoring and blood glucose from measurements at each of the three timepoints in the first 24 h after induction of anaesthesia was 0.38 mM (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.23-0.53; n=340 paired readings). Bias decreased from before the start of surgery (1.08 mM [95% CI: 0.87-1.29]; n=116) to 0.15 mM at the end of surgery (95% CI: -0.15 to 0.46; n=113). Mean absolute relative difference ranged from 12.0% to 18.3%. Error grid analyses found that >98% continuous glucose monitoring values were within acceptable risk ranges.
CONCLUSIONS
The accuracy of state-of-the-art continuous glucose monitoring is sufficient for perioperative use and could enhance perioperative surveillance of dysglycaemia.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
ISRCTN46862025.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience.
The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence.
Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.