Why the study?
Does constant intravenous infusion of regular insulin improve diabetic control compared to subcutaneous NPH insulin in insulin-requiring diabetic patients undergoing orthopedic surgery?
Does constant intravenous infusion of regular insulin improve diabetic control compared to subcutaneous NPH insulin in insulin-requiring diabetic patients undergoing orthopedic surgery?
Constant intravenous infusion of regular insulin at 2 units/hour improves diabetic control compared to subcutaneous NPH insulin during orthopedic surgery, but carries a higher risk of hypoglycemia.
2 U/h IV insulin may improve perioperative control versus NPH in diabetic orthopedic patients; extends RCT evidence but requires hypoglycemia monitoring.
A prospective randomized study comparing constant intravenous infusion of regular, low-dose insulin versus conventional subcutaneous administration of neutral protein Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in insulin-requiring patients undergoing orthopedic procedures under general anesthesia was undertaken. The degree of diabetic control was better in those receiving constant 2 units/hour of regular insulin than in those receiving two thirds of daily maintenance doses of NPH insulin. However, in two of eight patients receiving 2 units/hour, decreased insulin infusion rates and increased dextrose infusion rates were required to avoid hypoglycemia. Preoperative NPH insulin and 1 unit/hour insulin administration resulted in equivalent diabetic control.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Uri Taitelman (1977) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: