Routine HbA1c among hematology and oncology inpatients: Diabetes-status and hospital-outcomes.

AIMS: Using routine HbA1c measurement to determine the prevalence of diabetes mellitus (known and previously unrecognized) and their hospital outcomes among hematology and oncology inpatients. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study. Routine automated HbA1c testing was performed in all hematology and oncology inpatients aged ≥54 years at a tertiary hospital, July 2013-January 2015. The outcome measures were: (i) prevalence of known and previously unrecognized diabetes, and (ii) hospital outcomes: length-of-stay (LOS), intensive-care-unit (ICU) admission, 30-day/18-month readmission, and 18-month mortality. RESULTS: Over the 18-month study period, 1076 inpatients aged ≥54 years were admitted to hematology (n = 298) and oncology (n = 778) units: 21% had known diabetes and 7% had previously unrecognized diabetes. Patients with known diabetes had a longer LOS (IRR: 1.18, 95%CI: 1.02-1.37, p = 0.03), compared to those without diabetes, adjusting for age, hemoglobin level, estimated-glomerular-filtration-rate, admission specialty unit, Charlson's comorbidity index score, and glucocorticoid exposure. No significant differences were observed in ICU admission, 30-day/18-month readmission, and 18-month mortality among patients with known, previously unrecognized and no diabetes (p ≥ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one in five hematology or oncology inpatients aged ≥54 years had known diabetes, and one in fourteen had previously unrecognized diabetes. Those with known diabetes had a longer hospital stay. Routine HbA1c measurement is can be useful for identifying previously unrecognized diabetes, particularly among patients with high glucocorticoid exposure. Further study is required to determine cost-effectiveness in screening for unrecognized diabetes and optimal management of these patients.

Renal effects of an emergency department chloride-restrictive intravenous fluid strategy in patients admitted to hospital for more than 48 hours.

OBJECTIVE: Patients commonly receive i.v. fluids in the ED. It is still unclear whether the choice of i.v. fluids in this setting influences renal or patient outcomes. We aimed to assess the effects of restricting i.v. chloride administration in the ED on the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). METHODS: We conducted a before-and-after trial with 5008 consecutive ED-treated hospital admissions in the control period and 5146 consecutive admissions in the intervention period. During the control period (18 February 2008 to 17 August 2008), patients received standard i.v. fluids. During the intervention period (18 February 2009 to 17 August 2009), we restricted all chloride-rich fluids. We used the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) staging to define AKI. RESULTS: Stage 3 of KDIGO-defined AKI decreased from 54 (1.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8-1.4) to 30 (0.6%; 95% CI 0.4-0.8) (P = 0.006). The rate of renal replacement therapy did not change, from 13 (0.3%; 95% CI 0.2-0.4) to 8 (0.2%; 95% CI 0.1-0.3) (P = 0.25). After adjustment for relevant covariates, liberal chloride therapy remained associated with a greater risk of KDIGO stage 3 (hazard ratio 1.82; 95% CI 1.13-2.95; P = 0.01). On sensitivity assessment after removing repeat admissions, KDIGO stage 3 remained significantly lower in the intervention period compared with the control period (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In a before-and-after trial, a chloride-restrictive strategy in an ED was associated with a significant decrease in the incidence of stage 3 of KDIGO-defined AKI.

Chloride-liberal vs. chloride-restrictive intravenous fluid administration and acute kidney injury: an extended analysis.

PURPOSE: In a previous study, restricting intravenous chloride administration in ICU patients decreased the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). To test the robustness of this finding, we extended our observation period to 12 months. METHODS: The study extension included a 1-year control period (18 August 2007 to 17 August 2008) and a 1-year intervention period (18 February 2009 to 17 February 2010). During the extended control period, patients received standard intravenous fluids. During the extended intervention period, we continued to restrict all chloride-rich fluids. We used the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) staging to define AKI. RESULTS: We studied 1,476 control and 1,518 intervention patients. Stages 2 and 3 of KDIGO defined AKI decreased from 302 (20.5 %; 95 % CI, 18.5-22.6 %) to 238 (15.7 %; 95 % CI, 13.9-17.6 %) (P < 0.001) and the use of RRT from 144 (9.8 %; 95 % CI, 8.3-11.4 %) to 103 (6.8 %; 95 % CI, 5.6-8.2 %) (P = 0.003). After adjustment for relevant covariates, liberal chloride therapy remained associated with a greater risk of KDIGO stages 2 and 3 [hazard ratio 1.32 (95 % CI 1.11-1.58); P = 0.002] and use of RRT [hazard ratio 1.44 (95 % CI 1.10-1.88); P = 0.006]. However, on sensitivity assessment of each 6-month period, KDIGO stages 2 and 3 increased in the new extended intervention period compared with the original intervention period. CONCLUSIONS: On extended assessment, the overall impact of restricting chloride-rich fluids on AKI remained. However, sensitivity analysis suggested that other unidentified confounders may have also contributed to fluctuations in the incidence of AKI.