Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Narrative review outlines standardized perioperative glycaemic targets for cardiac surgery, highlighting the need for universal screening and moderate glucose control.
Objectives Diabetes and peri-operative hyperglycaemia are associated with increased morbidity and mortality following cardiac surgery. Despite this, specific guidance on peri-operative glycaemic management during cardiac surgery is lacking in United Kingdom (UK) and Europe. This narrative review presents evidence-based author recommendations for glycaemic control during adult cardiac surgery for those with, and without diagnosed diabetes. Methods A structured literature search was conducted using PubMed (1946–2025) and Embase (1974–2025), supplemented by Web of Science, Google Scholar, and thesis repositories. Studies reporting outcomes relating to diabetes status, HBA 1C , and/or blood glucose were included. Results Our recommendations include:- evaluating HbA 1c in all patients referred for cardiac surgery, regardless of diabetes status; HbA 1c target of 58 mmol/mol (7.5%) for patients with diabetes having elective cardiac surgery, maintenance of intra-operative blood glucose between 6–10 mmol/L (110–180 mg/dL) for all patients, and moderate rather than intensive peri-operative glycaemic control. We recommend patients with peri-operative hyperglycaemia be assessed by in-patient diabetes specialist team if available, and/or following discharge. All cardiac surgery hospitals in time, should aim to have a dedicated cardiac surgical diabetes working group, responsible for all cardiac surgery diabetes patients, and national outcome reporting. Conclusions Lack of consensus on peri-operative diabetes management for cardiac surgery exists in the UK and Europe. Our practical recommendations, including universal HbA 1c screening and glycaemic control targets, seek to standardize peri-operative management, improve clinical outcomes, and improve outcome reporting for this expanding vulnerable patient group.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Navaratnarajah et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: