Feasibility of intraoperative continuous glucose monitoring: An observational study in general surgery patients.

BACKGROUND

Perioperative hyperglycemia is associated with adverse outcomes in surgical patients, and major societies recommend intraoperative monitoring and treatment targeting glucose <180-200 mg/dL. However, compliance with these recommendations is poor, in part due to fear of unrecognized hypoglycemia. Continuous Glucose Monitors (CGMs) measure interstitial glucose with a subcutaneous electrode and can display the results on a receiver or smartphone. Historically CGMs have not been utilized for surgical patients. We investigated the use of CGM in the perioperative setting compared to current standard practices.

METHOD

This study evaluated the use of Abbott Freestyle Libre 2.0 and/or Dexcom G6 CGMs in a prospective cohort of 94 participants with diabetes mellitus undergoing surgery of ≥3 h duration. CGMs were placed preoperatively and compared to point of care (POC) BG checks obtained by capillary samples analyzed with a NOVA glucometer. Frequency of intraoperative blood glucose measurement was at the discretion of the anesthesia care team, with a recommendation of once per hour targeting BG of 140-180 mg/dL. Of those consented, 18 were excluded due to lost sensor data, surgery cancellation, or rescheduling to a satellite campus resulting in 76 enrolled subjects. There were zero occurrences of failure with sensor application. Paired POC BG and contemporaneous CGM readings were compared with Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

Data for use of CGM in perioperative period was analyzed for 50 participants with Freestyle Libre 2.0, 20 participants with Dexcom G6, and 6 participants with both devices worn simultaneously. Lost sensor data occurred in 3 participants (15%) wearing Dexcom G6, 10 participants wearing Freestyle Libre 2.0 (20%) and 2 of the participants wearing both devices simultaneously. The overall agreement of the two CGM's utilized had a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.731 in combined groups with 0.573 in Dexcom arm evaluating 84 matched pairs and 0.771 in Libre arm with 239 matched pairs. Modified Bland-Altman plot of the difference of CGM and POC BG indicated for the overall dataset a bias of -18.27 (SD 32.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Both Dexcom G6 and Freestyle Libre 2.0 CGMs were able to be utilized and functioned well if no sensor error occurred at time of initial warmup. CGM provided more glycemic data and further characterized glycemic trends more than individual BG readings. Required time of CGM warm up was a barrier for intraoperative use as well as unexplained sensor failure. CGMs had a fixed warm of time, 1 h for Libre 2.0 and 2 h for Dexcom G6 CGM, before glycemic data obtainable. Sensor application issues did not occur. It is anticipated that this technology could be used to improve glycemic control in the perioperative setting. Additional studies are needed to evaluate use intraoperatively and assess further if any interference from electrocautery or grounding devices may contribute to initial sensor failure. It may be beneficial in future studies to place CGM during preoperative clinic evaluation the week prior to surgery. Use of CGMs in these settings is feasible and warrants further evaluation of this technology on perioperative glycemic management.