Show simple item record

Evaluation of Hemoglobin A1c Criteria to Assess Preoperative Diabetes Risk in Cardiac Surgery Patients

dc.contributor.authorGianchandani, Roma Y.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSaberi, Simaen_US
dc.contributor.authorZrull, Christina A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPatil, Preethi V.en_US
dc.contributor.authorJha, Leenaen_US
dc.contributor.authorKling-Colson, Susan C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGandia, Kenia G.en_US
dc.contributor.authorDuBois, Elizabeth C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPlunkett, Cynthia D.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBodnar, Tim W.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPop-Busui, Rodicaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-03-22T17:22:56Z
dc.date.available2012-03-22T17:22:56Z
dc.date.issued2011-12-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationGianchandani, Roma Y.; Saberi, Sima; Zrull, Christina A.; Patil, Preethi V.; Jha, Leena; Kling-Colson, Susan C.; Gandia, Kenia G.; DuBois, Elizabeth C.; Plunkett, Cynthia D.; Bodnar, Tim W.; Pop-Busui, Rodica (2011). "Evaluation of Hemoglobin A1c Criteria to Assess Preoperative Diabetes Risk in Cardiac Surgery Patients." Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 13(12): 1249-1254. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/90436>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1520-9156en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/90436
dc.description.abstractObjective: Hemoglobin A1c (A1C) has recently been recommended for diagnosing diabetes mellitus and diabetes risk (prediabetes). Its performance compared with fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and 2-h post-glucose load (2HPG) is not well delineated. We compared the performance of A1C with that of FPG and 2HPG in preoperative cardiac surgery patients. Methods: Data from 92 patients without a history of diabetes were analyzed. Patients were classified with diabetes or prediabetes using established cutoffs for FPG, 2HPG, and A1C. Sensitivity and specificity of the new A1C criteria were evaluated. Results: All patients diagnosed with diabetes by A1C also had impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, or diabetes by other criteria. Using FPG as the reference, sensitivity and specificity of A1C for diagnosing diabetes were 50% and 96%, and using 2HPG as the reference they were 25% and 95%. Sensitivity and specificity for identifying prediabetes with FPG as the reference were 51% and 51%, respectively, and with 2HPG were 53% and 51%, respectively. One-third each of patients with prediabetes was identified using FPG, A1C, or both. When testing A1C and FPG concurrently, the sensitivity of diagnosing dysglycemia increased to 93% stipulating one or both tests are abnormal; specificity increased to 100% if both tests were required to be abnormal. Conclusions: In patients before cardiac surgery, A1C criteria identified the largest number of patients with diabetes and prediabetes. For diagnosing prediabetes, A1C and FPG were discordant and characterized different groups of patients, therefore altering the distribution of diabetes risk. Simultaneous measurement of FGP and A1C may be a more sensitive and specific tool for identifying high-risk individuals with diabetes and prediabetes.en_US
dc.publisherMary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishersen_US
dc.titleEvaluation of Hemoglobin A1c Criteria to Assess Preoperative Diabetes Risk in Cardiac Surgery Patientsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.pmid21854260en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/90436/1/dia-2E2011-2E0074.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1089/dia.2011.0074en_US
dc.identifier.sourceDiabetes Technology & Therapeuticsen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.