Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia

 

Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: Current Understanding and Therapeutic Approaches

Dr Neeraj Manikath,Claude.ai

Abstract

Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) represents a paradigm shift in cancer treatment, transforming from a fatal disease to a chronic condition with near-normal life expectancy. This review examines our current understanding of CML pathophysiology, the revolutionary impact of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), challenges in disease management, and emerging therapeutic approaches. Recent developments in treatment-free remission strategies and novel targeted therapies highlight the evolving landscape of CML management. Understanding the molecular mechanisms of CML and advances in treatment modalities remains crucial for optimizing patient outcomes and addressing the remaining challenges in CML therapy.

Introduction

Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by the uncontrolled production and proliferation of mature and maturing granulocytes with normal differentiation.^1^ The disease accounts for approximately 15% of all adult leukemias, with an annual incidence of 1-2 cases per 100,000 adults.^2^ The median age at diagnosis is 57-60 years, although CML can occur in all age groups, including children.^3^

The identification of the Philadelphia chromosome, a reciprocal translocation between chromosomes 9 and 22 [t(9;22)(q34;q11)], and its molecular counterpart, the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene, has revolutionized our understanding of CML pathophysiology.^4^ This genetic abnormality results in the production of a constitutively active tyrosine kinase that drives the malignant transformation of hematopoietic stem cells.^5^

The development of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the BCR-ABL1 oncoprotein has dramatically transformed CML from a fatal disease with a median survival of 3-5 years to a chronic condition with a life expectancy approaching that of the general population.^6^ This review examines our current understanding of CML pathophysiology, diagnostic approaches, therapeutic strategies, and future directions in CML management.

Pathophysiology

Molecular Basis

The hallmark genetic abnormality in CML is the Philadelphia chromosome, resulting from a reciprocal translocation between the long arms of chromosomes 9 and 22 [t(9;22)(q34;q11)]. This translocation juxtaposes the breakpoint cluster region (BCR) gene on chromosome 22 with the Abelson murine leukemia viral oncogene homolog 1 (ABL1) gene on chromosome 9, creating the fusion gene BCR-ABL1.^7^

The BCR-ABL1 fusion protein possesses constitutive tyrosine kinase activity that activates multiple downstream signaling pathways, including RAS/MAPK, PI3K/AKT, and STAT5, leading to increased cellular proliferation, reduced apoptosis, and altered cellular adhesion.^8^ The molecular weight of the BCR-ABL1 protein varies depending on the breakpoint in the BCR gene, with the 210-kDa protein (p210) being most commonly associated with CML.^9^

Recent studies have identified additional genetic alterations that may coexist with the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene, particularly in advanced phases of CML. These include mutations in tumor suppressor genes (TP53, CDKN2A), epigenetic regulators (ASXL1, TET2), and signaling molecules (RUNX1, NRAS).^10,11^ These additional genetic aberrations likely contribute to disease progression and therapy resistance.

Disease Progression

CML typically progresses through three clinical phases: chronic phase (CP), accelerated phase (AP), and blast phase (BP).^12^

The chronic phase is characterized by effective hematopoiesis with gradual myeloid expansion. Most patients (85-90%) are diagnosed in this phase, often incidentally during routine blood tests. Without effective treatment, CP-CML inevitably progresses to more advanced phases over a variable timeframe, typically 3-5 years.^13^

The accelerated phase represents an intermediate stage with features of increasing disease burden and genetic instability. Criteria for AP-CML include increased blasts (15-29%), persistent thrombocytopenia, clonal evolution with additional chromosomal abnormalities, and increasing splenomegaly despite therapy.^14^

The blast phase resembles acute leukemia, with >30% blasts in the bone marrow or peripheral blood, extramedullary blast proliferation, or large clusters of blasts in bone marrow biopsy.^15^ BP-CML may present as myeloid (~70%) or lymphoid (~30%) blast crisis, with lymphoid BP-CML having a somewhat better prognosis.^16^

Diagnosis and Classification

Diagnostic Criteria

The diagnosis of CML requires the demonstration of the Philadelphia chromosome by cytogenetic analysis or the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene by molecular techniques.^17^ According to the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, CML diagnosis is established when the following elements are present:^18^

1. Persistent leukocytosis (≥15 × 10^9^/L) with granulocytic predominance and a characteristic differential showing all stages of granulocyte maturation
2. Basophilia often present
3. Thrombocytosis in 30-50% of cases
4. Splenomegaly in the majority of patients
5. Presence of the Philadelphia chromosome [t(9;22)(q34;q11)] or the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene

Laboratory Investigations

A comprehensive diagnostic workup for CML includes:^19^

Complete Blood Count (CBC): Typically shows leukocytosis (often >50 × 10^9^/L), with a full spectrum of myeloid cells at different maturation stages. Basophilia and eosinophilia are common, and platelet counts may be elevated or depressed.

Bone Marrow Examination: Reveals hypercellularity with granulocytic hyperplasia and a normal or increased number of megakaryocytes. The myeloid-to-erythroid ratio is markedly increased (often >10:1).

Cytogenetic Analysis: Conventional karyotyping remains the gold standard for detecting the Philadelphia chromosome. Additional chromosomal abnormalities may indicate disease progression.

Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH): Provides rapid detection of the BCR-ABL1 fusion with higher sensitivity compared to conventional cytogenetics, particularly useful when metaphases are inadequate for karyotyping.

Molecular Testing: Quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) for BCR-ABL1 transcripts is essential for diagnosis confirmation and subsequent monitoring of treatment response.

Disease Classification

The classification of CML into different phases aids in prognostication and therapeutic decision-making. The WHO and European LeukemiaNet (ELN) have established criteria for defining the chronic, accelerated, and blast phases of CML, with some differences between these classification systems.^20^

ELN criteria for accelerated phase include:^21^

• Blasts 15-29% in blood or bone marrow
• Blasts plus promyelocytes ≥30% in blood or bone marrow
• Basophils ≥20% in peripheral blood
• Persistent thrombocytopenia (<100 × 10^9^/L) unrelated to therapy
• Clonal chromosomal abnormalities in Ph+ cells (CCA/Ph+)

ELN criteria for blast phase include:

• Blasts ≥30% in blood or bone marrow
• Extramedullary blast proliferation
• Large clusters of blasts in bone marrow biopsy

Prognostic Factors

Several prognostic scoring systems have been developed to predict outcomes in CML patients, guiding treatment decisions and identifying high-risk patients who may benefit from more intensive monitoring or alternative therapeutic approaches.

Sokal and Hasford Scores

The Sokal score, developed in the pre-TKI era, incorporates age, spleen size, platelet count, and blast percentage to stratify patients into low, intermediate, and high-risk categories.^22^ The Hasford (or Euro) score additionally includes eosinophil and basophil percentages.^23^ Despite being developed before the TKI era, these scores maintain prognostic relevance in the context of TKI therapy, particularly for predicting cytogenetic and molecular responses.

EUTOS and ELTS Scores

The EUTOS (European Treatment and Outcome Study) score was specifically developed in the imatinib era, using basophil percentage and spleen size to predict complete cytogenetic response at 18 months.^24^ More recently, the EUTOS Long-Term Survival (ELTS) score was developed to predict long-term outcomes in CML patients treated with TKIs, incorporating age, spleen size, platelet count, and blast percentage.^25^ The ELTS score has demonstrated superior performance in predicting CML-related deaths compared to older scoring systems.

Molecular Response Kinetics

The depth and speed of molecular response to TKI therapy have emerged as important prognostic factors. Early molecular response (EMR), defined as BCR-ABL1 ≤10% on the International Scale (IS) at 3 months, is associated with improved long-term outcomes.^26^ Similarly, achieving a major molecular response (MMR, BCR-ABL1 ≤0.1% IS) by 12 months correlates with improved progression-free and overall survival.^27^

Recent studies suggest that the BCR-ABL1 halving time during the first months of therapy may provide additional prognostic information.^28^ Patients with a rapid decline in BCR-ABL1 transcripts typically have more favorable long-term outcomes and higher probabilities of achieving deep molecular responses.

Additional Prognostic Factors

Several additional factors may influence prognosis in CML:

Clonal Chromosomal Abnormalities: The presence of additional chromosomal abnormalities at diagnosis (particularly trisomy 8, isochromosome 17q, or an extra Ph chromosome) is associated with poorer outcomes.^29^

BCR-ABL1 Transcript Type: Most CML patients express e13a2 (b2a2) or e14a2 (b3a2) transcripts. Some studies suggest that e14a2 transcripts may be associated with deeper molecular responses and better outcomes.^30^

Comorbidities: The presence of significant comorbidities can impact treatment tolerance and overall survival, particularly in older patients.^31^

Age: Advanced age remains an adverse prognostic factor, even in the TKI era, partly due to reduced treatment tolerance and increased comorbidities.^32^

Therapeutic Approaches

Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors

The advent of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has revolutionized CML treatment, transforming it from a fatal disease to a chronic condition with a near-normal life expectancy for most patients.^33^ Currently, five TKIs are approved for CML treatment:

Imatinib (Gleevec/Glivec): The first-generation TKI that binds to the inactive conformation of the BCR-ABL1 kinase domain, preventing ATP binding and inhibiting tyrosine kinase activity.^34^ The landmark IRIS trial demonstrated the remarkable efficacy of imatinib with a 10-year overall survival rate of 83.3%.^35^

Dasatinib (Sprycel): A second-generation TKI with 325-fold greater potency against BCR-ABL1 compared to imatinib. Dasatinib binds to both active and inactive conformations of BCR-ABL1 and inhibits SRC family kinases.^36^ The DASISION trial showed faster and deeper responses with dasatinib compared to imatinib in newly diagnosed CML.^37^

Nilotinib (Tasigna): Another second-generation TKI with 20-30 fold higher potency than imatinib, binding exclusively to the inactive conformation of BCR-ABL1.^38^ The ENESTnd trial demonstrated superior efficacy of nilotinib over imatinib, with higher rates of major molecular response and reduced disease progression.^39^

Bosutinib (Bosulif): A dual SRC/ABL kinase inhibitor with activity against most imatinib-resistant BCR-ABL1 mutations except T315I.^40^ The BELA and BFORE trials established the efficacy of bosutinib in both first-line and subsequent-line settings.^41,42^

Ponatinib (Iclusig): A third-generation TKI designed specifically to overcome the T315I mutation, which confers resistance to all other approved TKIs.^43^ The PACE trial demonstrated efficacy in heavily pretreated patients, including those with the T315I mutation.^44^ However, ponatinib is associated with significant cardiovascular adverse events, necessitating careful patient selection and monitoring.

Response Monitoring and Definitions

The monitoring of treatment response in CML primarily relies on hematologic, cytogenetic, and molecular assessments, with internationally standardized definitions:^45^

Hematologic Response:

• Complete Hematologic Response (CHR): Normalization of blood counts with absence of immature cells, resolution of splenomegaly

Cytogenetic Response:

• Complete Cytogenetic Response (CCyR): No Ph+ metaphases
• Partial Cytogenetic Response (PCyR): 1-35% Ph+ metaphases
• Minor Cytogenetic Response: 36-65% Ph+ metaphases
• Minimal Cytogenetic Response: 66-95% Ph+ metaphases

Molecular Response:

• Early Molecular Response (EMR): BCR-ABL1 ≤10% IS at 3 months
• Major Molecular Response (MMR or MR3.0): BCR-ABL1 ≤0.1% IS
• Deep Molecular Response:
  • MR4.0: BCR-ABL1 ≤0.01% IS
  • MR4.5: BCR-ABL1 ≤0.0032% IS
  • MR5.0: BCR-ABL1 ≤0.001% IS

Regular monitoring of BCR-ABL1 transcript levels by qRT-PCR is recommended every 3 months until MMR is achieved, then every 3-6 months.^46^ Failure to achieve time-dependent molecular milestones or loss of previously achieved responses should prompt investigation for treatment adherence issues, drug interactions, and BCR-ABL1 kinase domain mutations.

Treatment Resistance and Mutations

Despite the remarkable efficacy of TKI therapy, approximately 20-30% of CML patients experience treatment failure or intolerance.^47^ Primary resistance refers to the failure to achieve appropriate response milestones, while secondary resistance involves loss of previously achieved responses.

BCR-ABL1 kinase domain mutations represent a major mechanism of TKI resistance, affecting the binding of TKIs to their target.^48^ Over 100 different mutations have been identified, with varying degrees of impact on TKI sensitivity. The T315I mutation, often described as the "gatekeeper" mutation, confers resistance to all approved TKIs except ponatinib.^49^

Mutation analysis should be performed in cases of treatment failure, suboptimal response, or loss of response. The identification of specific mutations can guide TKI selection:^50^

• V299L, T315A, F317L/V/I/C: Consider nilotinib or bosutinib
• Y253H, E255K/V, F359V/C/I: Consider dasatinib or bosutinib
• T315I: Consider ponatinib or experimental agents
• E255K/V, F359C/V, Y253H plus T315I: Consider ponatinib

Treatment-Free Remission

Treatment-free remission (TFR), the ability to discontinue TKI therapy without disease recurrence, has emerged as an important goal in CML management.^51^ Several studies have demonstrated that approximately 40-60% of patients with sustained deep molecular responses can successfully discontinue TKI therapy without molecular relapse.^52,53^

Key factors associated with successful TFR include:^54^

• Duration of TKI therapy (≥5-6 years)
• Duration of deep molecular response (≥2 years)
• Prior treatment with interferon
• Deeper molecular responses (MR4.5 or better)
• Low Sokal risk score
• Digital PCR negativity

The EURO-SKI trial, one of the largest TFR studies, reported a 6-month TFR rate of 61% among patients with at least MR4.0 and ≥3 years of TKI therapy.^55^ The duration of TKI therapy and deep molecular response were identified as the most important predictors of successful TFR.

Current guidelines recommend considering TFR attempts only in optimal candidates with at least MR4.0 for ≥2 years, ≥5 years of TKI therapy, no prior treatment failure, and access to frequent high-quality molecular monitoring.^56^ Monthly molecular monitoring is recommended during the first 6 months after TKI discontinuation, followed by monitoring every 2 months for the next 6 months, and every 3 months thereafter.

Advanced Phase CML

The management of accelerated phase (AP) and blast phase (BP) CML remains challenging, with less favorable outcomes compared to chronic phase disease.^57^

For patients presenting in AP-CML, TKI monotherapy (preferably second-generation TKIs) can induce complete hematologic responses in 70-80% and complete cytogenetic responses in 40-60%.^58^ However, responses tend to be less durable than in CP-CML.

BP-CML management typically involves combination approaches with TKIs and intensive chemotherapy regimens, tailored according to the myeloid or lymphoid phenotype.^59^ For myeloid BP, TKIs combined with AML-type chemotherapy (cytarabine plus an anthracycline) may be used, while lymphoid BP may benefit from TKIs plus ALL-type regimens.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) should be considered in eligible patients with AP or BP-CML who achieve return to chronic phase, as it represents the only potentially curative option for advanced disease.^60^

Emerging Therapies and Future Directions

Novel TKIs and BCR-ABL1 Inhibitors

Several next-generation TKIs are in various stages of development:

Asciminib (ABL001): The first-in-class STAMP (Specifically Targeting the ABL Myristoyl Pocket) inhibitor that binds to the myristoyl pocket of BCR-ABL1 rather than the ATP-binding site, offering a mechanism distinct from conventional TKIs.^61^ The ASCEMBL trial demonstrated superior efficacy of asciminib compared to bosutinib in heavily pretreated patients, including those with resistance to multiple prior TKIs.^62^ Asciminib received FDA approval in 2021 for patients with resistance or intolerance to at least two prior TKIs.

Olverembatinib (HQP1351): A third-generation TKI with activity against multiple BCR-ABL1 mutations, including T315I. Phase 2 trials have shown promising results in patients with T315I mutations or resistance to multiple TKIs.^63^

PF-114: Another third-generation TKI designed to target BCR-ABL1 with the T315I mutation, currently in clinical development.^64^

Targeting CML Stem Cells

CML stem cells demonstrate relative insensitivity to TKIs through various mechanisms, including quiescence, altered signaling pathways, and microenvironmental interactions.^65^ This persistence of leukemic stem cells likely explains why most patients require indefinite TKI therapy.

Several approaches to target CML stem cells are under investigation:^66^

Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor γ (PPARγ) Agonists: Pioglitazone has been shown to reduce CML stem cell quiescence through activation of the tumor suppressor protein PP2A, enhancing TKI efficacy.^67^

JAK2 Inhibitors: Ruxolitinib and other JAK2 inhibitors may target the JAK/STAT pathway, which remains active in CML stem cells despite BCR-ABL1 inhibition.^68^

Venetoclax: This selective BCL-2 inhibitor has shown promising activity against CML stem cells in preclinical models, particularly when combined with TKIs.^69^

PROTAC-Based Approaches: Proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs) that degrade BCR-ABL1 protein represent a novel therapeutic strategy potentially capable of overcoming TKI resistance.^70^

Immunotherapeutic Approaches

Harnessing the immune system to target residual CML cells may complement the direct anti-leukemic effects of TKIs:^71^

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors are being evaluated in combination with TKIs to enhance immune surveillance against CML cells.^72^

Therapeutic Vaccines: Various vaccine strategies, including peptide vaccines targeting BCR-ABL1 junctional peptides and dendritic cell vaccines, are under investigation to stimulate anti-leukemic immune responses.^73^

CAR-T Cell Therapy: Although less developed in CML compared to acute leukemias, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies targeting CML-specific antigens represent a potentially promising approach, particularly for advanced disease.^74^

Challenges and Future Perspectives

Despite the remarkable success of TKI therapy in CML, several challenges remain:

Treatment Discontinuation

While treatment-free remission represents an important goal, predictive biomarkers to identify optimal candidates for TKI discontinuation remain limited.^75^ Ongoing research focuses on identifying molecular, immunological, and microenvironmental factors associated with successful TFR.^76^ Digital PCR and next-generation sequencing approaches may provide more sensitive detection of residual disease, potentially improving patient selection for TFR attempts.^77^

Long-Term Safety and Quality of Life

The necessity for lifelong TKI therapy in many patients raises concerns about long-term safety and quality of life.^78^ Cardiovascular complications, metabolic abnormalities, endocrine dysfunction, and musculoskeletal issues have been reported with various TKIs.^79,80^ Optimizing TKI selection based on individual patient characteristics, comorbidities, and potential drug interactions represents an important aspect of personalized CML management.

Advanced Disease

Despite progress in CP-CML management, outcomes for BP-CML remain poor, with median survival typically less than one year.^81^ Novel approaches combining TKIs with targeted agents addressing specific pathways involved in disease progression (e.g., WNT/β-catenin, Hedgehog) or immunotherapeutic strategies may improve outcomes for these patients.^82^

Access to Optimal Care

Global disparities in access to TKIs, molecular monitoring, and specialized hematology care remain significant challenges.^83^ The availability of generic imatinib has improved access in many regions, but comprehensive CML management, including regular molecular monitoring and access to second/third-generation TKIs for resistant disease, remains limited in resource-constrained settings.^84^

Conclusion

The management of chronic myeloid leukemia represents one of the most remarkable success stories in modern oncology. The development of targeted therapies based on a deep understanding of disease pathophysiology has transformed CML from a fatal disease to a chronic condition with a near-normal life expectancy for most patients.

Current research focuses on refining treatment strategies to maximize efficacy while minimizing toxicity, identifying optimal candidates for treatment discontinuation, developing novel approaches to target resistant disease and leukemic stem cells, and addressing the remaining challenges in advanced disease management.

As our understanding of CML biology continues to evolve and new therapeutic options emerge, the goal of functional cure or true disease eradication appears increasingly achievable for a growing proportion of CML patients.

References

1. Jabbour E, Kantarjian H. Chronic myeloid leukemia: 2020 update on diagnosis, therapy and monitoring. Am J Hematol. 2020;95(6):691-709.
2. Höglund M, Sandin F, Simonsson B. Epidemiology of chronic myeloid leukaemia: an update. Ann Hematol. 2015;94(Suppl 2)
   .
3. Faderl S, Talpaz M, Estrov Z, et al. The biology of chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(3):164-172.
4. Rowley JD. Letter: A new consistent chromosomal abnormality in chronic myelogenous leukaemia identified by quinacrine fluorescence and Giemsa staining. Nature. 1973;243(5405):290-293.
5. Ren R. Mechanisms of BCR-ABL in the pathogenesis of chronic myelogenous leukaemia. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5(3):172-183.
6. Bower H, Björkholm M, Dickman PW, et al. Life expectancy of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia approaches the life expectancy of the general population. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(24):2851-2857.
7. Melo JV. The diversity of BCR-ABL fusion proteins and their relationship to leukemia phenotype. Blood. 1996;88(7):2375-2384.
8. Cilloni D, Saglio G. Molecular pathways: BCR-ABL. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(4):930-937.
9. Hochhaus A, Saussele S, Rosti G, et al. Chronic myeloid leukaemia: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(suppl_4)
   .
10. Branford S, Kim DDH, Apperley JF, et al. Laying the foundation for genomically-based risk assessment in chronic myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 2019;33(8):1835-1850.
11. Branford S, Wang P, Yeung DT, et al. Integrative genomic analysis reveals cancer-associated mutations at diagnosis of CML in patients with high-risk disease. Blood. 2018;132(9):948-961.
12. Cortes JE, Talpaz M, O'Brien S, et al. Staging of chronic myeloid leukemia in the imatinib era: an evaluation of the World Health Organization proposal. Cancer. 2006;106(6):1306-1315.
13. Jain P, Kantarjian H, Patel KP, et al. Impact of BCR-ABL transcript type on outcome in patients with chronic-phase CML treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Blood. 2016;127(10):1269-1275.
14. Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian R, et al. The 2016 revision to the World Health Organization classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia. Blood. 2016;127(20):2391-2405.
15. Vardiman JW, Melo JV, Baccarani M, et al. Chronic myelogenous leukaemia, BCR-ABL1 positive. In: Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Harris NL, et al., eds. WHO Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues. Lyon, France: IARC; 2017:30-36.
16. Jabbour E, Kantarjian H, O'Brien S, et al. Sudden blastic transformation in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia treated with imatinib mesylate. Blood. 2006;107(2):480-482.
17. Baccarani M, Deininger MW, Rosti G, et al. European LeukemiaNet recommendations for the management of chronic myeloid leukemia: 2013. Blood. 2013;122(6):872-884.
18. Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Harris NL, et al., eds. WHO Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues. Revised 4th ed. Lyon, France: IARC; 2017.
19. Hochhaus A, Baccarani M, Silver RT, et al. European LeukemiaNet 2020 recommendations for treating chronic myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 2020;34(4):966-984.
20. Kantarjian HM, Dixon D, Keating MJ, et al. Characteristics of accelerated disease in chronic myelogenous leukemia. Cancer. 1988;61(7):1441-1446.
21. Hochhaus A, Baccarani M, Silver RT, et al. European LeukemiaNet 2020 recommendations for treating chronic myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 2020;34(4):966-984.
22. Sokal JE, Cox EB, Baccarani M, et al. Prognostic discrimination in "good-risk" chronic granulocytic leukemia. Blood. 1984;63(4):789-799.
23. Hasford J, Pfirrmann M, Hehlmann R, et al. A new prognostic score for survival of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia treated with interferon alfa. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(11):850-858.
24. Hasford J, Baccarani M, Hoffmann V, et al. Predicting complete cytogenetic response and subsequent progression-free survival in 2060 patients with CML on imatinib treatment: the EUTOS score. Blood. 2011;118(3):686-692.
25. Pfirrmann M, Baccarani M, Saussele S, et al. Prognosis of long-term survival considering disease-specific death in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 2016;30(1):48-56.
26. Marin D, Ibrahim AR, Lucas C, et al. Assessment of BCR-ABL1 transcript levels at 3 months is the only requirement for predicting outcome for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(3):232-238.
27. Hughes TP, Saglio G, Kantarjian HM, et al. Early molecular response predicts outcomes in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase treated with frontline nilotinib or imatinib. Blood. 2014;123(9):1353-1360.
28. Branford S, Yeung DT, Ross DM, et al. Early molecular response and female sex strongly predict stable undetectable BCR-ABL1, the criteria for imatinib discontinuation in patients with CML. Blood. 2013;121(19):3818-3824.
29. Wang W, Cortes JE, Tang G, et al. Risk stratification of chromosomal abnormalities in chronic myelogenous leukemia in the era of tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. Blood. 2016;127(22):2742-2750.
30. Jain P, Kantarjian H, Patel KP, et al. Impact of BCR-ABL transcript type on outcome in patients with chronic-phase CML treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Blood. 2016;127(10):1269-1275.
31. Efficace F, Baccarani M, Breccia M, et al. Health-related quality of life in chronic myeloid leukemia patients receiving long-term therapy with imatinib compared with the general population. Blood. 2011;118(17):4554-4560.
32. Rosti G, Castagnetti F, Gugliotta G, et al. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors in chronic myeloid leukaemia: which, when, for whom? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(3):141-154.
33. Bower H, Björkholm M, Dickman PW, et al. Life expectancy of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia approaches the life expectancy of the general population. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(24):2851-2857.
34. Druker BJ, Tamura S, Buchdunger E, et al. Effects of a selective inhibitor of the Abl tyrosine kinase on the growth of Bcr-Abl positive cells. Nat Med. 1996;2(5):561-566.
35. Hochhaus A, Larson RA, Guilhot F, et al. Long-term outcomes of imatinib treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(10):917-927.
36. Shah NP, Tran C, Lee FY, et al. Overriding imatinib resistance with a novel ABL kinase inhibitor. Science. 2004;305(5682):399-401Cortes JE, Saglio G, Kantarjian HM, et al. Final 5-year study results of DASISION: The dasatinib versus imatinib study in treatment-naïve chronic myeloid leukemia patients. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(20):2333-2340.
37. 37. Weisberg E, Manley PW, Breitenstein W, et al. Characterization of AMN107, a selective inhibitor of native and mutant Bcr-Abl. Cancer Cell. 2005;7(2):129-141.
    38. Hochhaus A, Saglio G, Hughes TP, et al. Long-term benefits and risks of frontline nilotinib vs imatinib for chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: 5-year update of the randomized ENESTnd trial. Leukemia. 2016;30(5):1044-1054.
    39. Cortes JE, Kantarjian HM, Brümmendorf TH, et al. Safety and efficacy of bosutinib (SKI-606) in chronic phase Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia patients with resistance or intolerance to imatinib. Blood. 2011;118(17):4567-4576.
    40. Cortes JE, Gambacorti-Passerini C, Deininger MW, et al. Bosutinib versus imatinib for newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia: results from the randomized BFORE trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(3):231-237.
    41. Cortes JE, Kim DW, Kantarjian HM, et al. Bosutinib versus imatinib in newly diagnosed chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia: results from the BELA trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(28):3486-3492.
    42. O'Hare T, Shakespeare WC, Zhu X, et al. AP24534, a pan-BCR-ABL inhibitor for chronic myeloid leukemia, potently inhibits the T315I mutant and overcomes mutation-based resistance. Cancer Cell. 2009;16(5):401-412.
    43. Cortes JE, Kim DW, Pinilla-Ibarz J, et al. Ponatinib efficacy and safety in Philadelphia chromosome-positive leukemia: final 5-year results of the phase 2 PACE trial. Blood. 2018;132(4):393-404.
    44. Hochhaus A, Baccarani M, Silver RT, et al. European LeukemiaNet 2020 recommendations for treating chronic myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 2020;34(4):966-984.
    45. Cross NC, White HE, Müller MC, et al. Standardized definitions of molecular response in chronic myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 2012;26(10):2172-2175.
    46. Soverini S, Mancini M, Bavaro L, et al. Chronic myeloid leukemia: the paradigm of targeting oncogenic tyrosine kinase signaling and counteracting resistance for successful cancer therapy. Mol Cancer. 2018;17(1):49.
    47. Soverini S, Hochhaus A, Nicolini FE, et al. BCR-ABL kinase domain mutation analysis in chronic myeloid leukemia patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors: recommendations from an expert panel on behalf of European LeukemiaNet. Blood. 2011;118(5):1208-1215.
    48. Redaelli S, Piazza R, Rostagno R, et al. Activity of bosutinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib against 18 imatinib-resistant BCR/ABL mutants. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(3):469-471.
    49. Soverini S, Abruzzese E, Bocchia M, et al. Next-generation sequencing for BCR-ABL1 kinase domain mutation testing in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia: a position paper. J Hematol Oncol. 2019;12(1):131.
    50. Ross DM, Masszi T, Gómez Casares MT, et al. Durable treatment-free remission in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase following frontline nilotinib: 96-week update of the ENESTfreedom study. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2018;144(5):945-954.
    51. Etienne G, Guilhot J, Rea D, et al. Long-term follow-up of the French Stop Imatinib (STIM1) study in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(3):298-305.
    52. Saussele S, Richter J, Guilhot J, et al. Discontinuation of tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in chronic myeloid leukaemia (EURO-SKI): a prespecified interim analysis of a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised, trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(6):747-757.
    53. Mahon FX, Réa D, Guilhot J, et al. Discontinuation of imatinib in patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia who have maintained complete molecular remission for at least 2 years: the prospective, multicentre Stop Imatinib (STIM) trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(11):1029-1035.
    54. Saussele S, Richter J, Guilhot J, et al. Discontinuation of tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in chronic myeloid leukaemia (EURO-SKI): a prespecified interim analysis of a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised, trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(6):747-757.
    55. Hochhaus A, Baccarani M, Silver RT, et al. European LeukemiaNet 2020 recommendations for treating chronic myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 2020;34(4):966-984.
    56. Hehlmann R. How I treat CML blast crisis. Blood. 2012;120(4):737-747.
    57. Cortes J, Rousselot P, Kim DW, et al. Dasatinib induces complete hematologic and cytogenetic responses in patients with imatinib-resistant or -intolerant chronic myeloid leukemia in blast crisis. Blood. 2007;109(8):3207-3213.
    58. Jabbour E, Kantarjian H, O'Brien S, et al. The achievement of an early complete cytogenetic response is a major determinant for outcome in patients with early chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Blood. 2011;118(17):4541-4546.
    59. Jain P, Kantarjian HM, Ghorab A, et al. Prognostic factors and survival outcomes in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in blast phase in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor era: Cohort study of 477 patients. Cancer. 2017;123(22):4391-4402.
    60. Wylie AA, Schoepfer J, Jahnke W, et al. The allosteric inhibitor ABL001 enables dual targeting of BCR-ABL1. Nature. 2017;543(7647):733-737.
    61. Réa D, Mauro MJ, Boquimpani C, et al. A phase 3, open-label, randomized study of asciminib, a STAMP inhibitor, vs bosutinib in CML after 2 or more prior TKIs. Blood. 2021;138(21):2031-2041.
    62. Jiang Q, Huang X, Chen Z, et al. Novel BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) HQP1351 (olverembatinib) is efficacious and well tolerated in patients with T315I-mutated chronic myeloid leukemia (CML): results of pivotal (phase II) trials. Blood. 2020;136(Supplement 1):50-51.
    63. Mian AA, Rafiei A, Haberbosch I, et al. PF-114, a potent and selective inhibitor of native and mutated BCR/ABL is active against Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) leukemias harboring the T315I mutation. Leukemia. 2015;29(5):1104-1114.
    64. Holyoake TL, Vetrie D. The chronic myeloid leukemia stem cell: stemming the tide of persistence. Blood. 2017;129(12):1595-1606.
    65. Vetrie D, Helgason GV, Copland M. The leukaemia stem cell: similarities, differences and clinical prospects in CML and AML. Nat Rev Cancer. 2020;20(3):158-173.
    66. Rousselot P, Prost S, Guilhot J, et al. Pioglitazone together with imatinib in chronic myeloid leukemia: A proof of concept study. Cancer. 2017;123(10):1791-1799.
    67. Gallipoli P, Cook A, Rhodes S, et al. JAK2/STAT5 inhibition by nilotinib with ruxolitinib contributes to the elimination of CML CD34+ cells in vitro and in vivo. Blood. 2014;124(9):1492-1501.
    68. Carter BZ, Mak PY, Mu H, et al. Combined targeting of BCL-2 and BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase eradicates chronic myeloid leukemia stem cells. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8(355):355ra117.
    69. Lai AC, Crews CM. Induced protein degradation: an emerging drug discovery paradigm. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2017;16(2):101-114.
    70. Hughes A, Yong ASM. Immune effector recovery in chronic myeloid leukemia and treatment-free remission. Front Immunol. 2017;8:469.
    71. Massimino M, Stella S, Tirrò E, et al. Non ABL-directed inhibitors as alternative treatment strategies for chronic myeloid leukemia. Mol Cancer. 2018;17(1):56.
    72. Bocchia M, Sicuranza A, Abruzzese E, et al. Residual peripheral blood CD26+ leukemic stem cells in chronic myeloid leukemia patients during TKI therapy and during treatment-free remission. Front Oncol. 2018;8:194.
    73. Rezvani K, Rouce R, Liu E, et al. Engineering natural killer cells for cancer immunotherapy. Mol Ther. 2017;25(8):1769-1781.
    74. Ross DM, Branford S, Seymour JF, et al. Safety and efficacy of imatinib cessation for CML patients with stable undetectable minimal residual disease: results from the TWISTER study. Blood. 2013;122(4):515-522.
    75. Claudiani S, Apperley JF. The argument for using imatinib in CML. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2018;2018(1):161-167.
    76. Legros L, Rousselot P, Giraudier S, et al. Second attempt to discontinue imatinib in CP-CML patients with a second sustained complete molecular response. Blood. 2012;120(9):1959-1960.
    77. Pinilla-Ibarz J, Cortes J, Mauro MJ. Intolerance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in chronic myeloid leukemia: Definitions and clinical implications. Cancer. 2011;117(4):688-697.
    78. Steegmann JL, Baccarani M, Breccia M, et al. European LeukemiaNet recommendations for the management and avoidance of adverse events of treatment in chronic myeloid leukaemia. Leukemia. 2016;30(8):1648-1671.
    79. Valent P, Hadzijusufovic E, Schernthaner GH, et al. Vascular safety issues in CML patients treated with BCR/ABL1 kinase inhibitors. Blood. 2015;125(6):901-906.
    80. Jain P, Kantarjian HM, Ghorab A, et al. Prognostic factors and survival outcomes in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in blast phase in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor era: Cohort study of 477 patients. Cancer. 2017;123(22):4391-4402.
    81. Sasaki K, Jabbour EJ, Ravandi F, et al. Hyper-CVAD plus ponatinib versus hyper-CVAD plus dasatinib as frontline therapy for patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A propensity score analysis. Cancer. 2016;122(23):3650-3656.
    82. Louw VJ, Dreosti L, Ruff P, et al. Recommendations for the management of adult chronic myeloid leukaemia in South Africa. S Afr Med J. 2011;101(11):840-846.
    83. Sipahi I, Akyol A, Yaykasli KO, et al. Pharmacogenetic determinants of therapeutic response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in CML patients. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:689901.
    84. Radich JP, Deininger M, Abboud CN, et al. Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, Version 1.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018;16(9):1108-1135.
    85. Cortes J, Lang F. Third-line therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia: current status and future directions. J Hematol Oncol. 2021;14(1):44.
    86. Cortes JE, Khoury HJ, Kantarjian HM, et al. Long-term bosutinib for chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia after failure of imatinib plus dasatinib and/or nilotinib. Am J Hematol. 2016;91(12):1206-1214.
    87. Mahon FX. Treatment-free remission in CML: who, how, and why? Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2017;2017(1):102-109.
    88. Rea D, Nicolini FE, Tulliez M, et al. Discontinuation of dasatinib or nilotinib in chronic myeloid leukemia: interim analysis of the STOP 2G-TKI study. Blood. 2017;129(7):846-854.
    89. Ross DM, Hughes TP. Treatment-free remission in patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020;17(8):493-503.
    90. Jabbour E, Kantarjian H. Chronic myeloid leukemia: 2022 update on diagnosis, therapy, and monitoring. Am J Hematol. 2022;97(8):1056-1067.
    91. Kantarjian HM, Hughes TP, Larson RA, et al. Long-term outcomes with frontline nilotinib versus imatinib in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: ENESTnd 10-year analysis. Leukemia. 2021;35(2):440-453.
    92. Arunasree KM, Roy KR, Anilkumar K, et al. Imatinib-resistant K562 cells are more sensitive to celecoxib, a selective COX-2 inhibitor: role of COX-2 and MDR-1. Leuk Res. 2008;32(6):855-864.
    93. Baccarani M, Saglio G, Goldman J, et al. Evolving concepts in the management of chronic myeloid leukemia: recommendations from an expert panel on behalf of the European LeukemiaNet. Blood. 2006;108(6):1809-1820.
    94. Baccarani M, Cortes J, Pane F, et al. Chronic myeloid leukemia: an update of concepts and management recommendations of European LeukemiaNet. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(35):6041-6051.
    95. Bhamidipati PK, Kantarjian H, Cortes J, et al. Management of imatinib-resistant patients with chronic myeloid leukemia. Ther Adv Hematol. 2013;4(2):103-117.
    96. Chereda B, Melo JV. Natural course and biology of CML. Ann Hematol. 2015;94(Suppl 2)
        .
    97. Chomel JC, Turhan AG. Chronic myeloid leukemia stem cells in the era of targeted therapies: resistance, persistence and long-term dormancy. Oncotarget. 2011;2(9):713-727.
    98. Corbin AS, Agarwal A, Loriaux M, et al. Human chronic myeloid leukemia stem cells are insensitive to imatinib despite inhibition of BCR-ABL activity. J Clin Invest. 2011;121(1):396-409.
    99. Deininger MW, Goldman JM, Melo JV. The molecular biology of chronic myeloid leukemia. Blood. 2000;96(10):3343-3356.

Interpretation of Nerve Conduction Studies

 

Interpretation of Nerve Conduction Studies: A Comprehensive Guide for Physicians

Dr Neeraj Manikath , Claude.ai

Introduction

Nerve conduction studies (NCS) remain a cornerstone of electrodiagnostic medicine, providing objective assessment of peripheral nerve function. Despite advances in imaging techniques, NCS continue to offer unique insights into nerve pathophysiology that cannot be obtained through other modalities. This review aims to provide physicians with a systematic approach to interpreting NCS results, highlighting key parameters, common pathologies, and clinical correlations to enhance diagnostic accuracy and patient management.

Basic Principles and Technical Considerations

Nerve conduction studies involve electrical stimulation of peripheral nerves and recording of the evoked responses. The fundamental parameters measured include:

1. Latency: Time interval between stimulus and response onset, measured in milliseconds (ms)
2. Amplitude: Size of the response, measured in millivolts (mV) for motor responses and microvolts (μV) for sensory responses
3. Conduction velocity: Speed of nerve impulse propagation, measured in meters per second (m/s)
4. F-waves: Late responses that assess proximal nerve segments
5. H-reflexes: Electrically induced monosynaptic reflexes

Temperature significantly affects conduction parameters, with lower temperatures increasing latencies and decreasing conduction velocities. Most laboratories maintain limb temperatures at 32-34°C to ensure reliable measurements (Dumitru et al., 2002).

Interpretation Framework

The interpretation of NCS requires a systematic approach:

1. Determine if the study is normal or abnormal

This assessment is based on comparison with established reference values, which vary by laboratory, patient age, height, and the specific nerve being tested. Results falling outside two standard deviations from the mean are generally considered abnormal (Preston & Shapiro, 2013).

2. Localize the lesion

• Focal neuropathy: Abnormalities localized to a specific site along a nerve
• Radiculopathy: Abnormalities affecting specific nerve roots
• Plexopathy: Abnormalities affecting the brachial or lumbosacral plexus
• Polyneuropathy: Diffuse involvement of multiple peripheral nerves

3. Characterize the pathophysiology

• Demyelinating: Characterized by prolonged latencies, reduced conduction velocities, temporal dispersion, and conduction block with relatively preserved amplitudes
• Axonal: Characterized by reduced amplitudes with relatively preserved latencies and conduction velocities
• Mixed: Features of both demyelinating and axonal pathologies

4. Determine chronicity

• Acute: Active denervation on needle EMG (fibrillations, positive sharp waves)
• Chronic: Evidence of reinnervation (large motor unit potentials, increased polyphasic potentials)
• Ongoing: Features of both acute and chronic changes

Common Patterns of Abnormality

Focal Mononeuropathies

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (Median Neuropathy at the Wrist)

Diagnostic criteria include:

• Prolonged distal motor latency (>4.5 ms)
• Reduced sensory conduction velocity across the wrist segment (<50 m/s)
• Decreased sensory amplitude
• Normal conduction in the forearm segment
• Comparative studies showing significant differences between median and ulnar nerve parameters (Jablecki et al., 2002)

Ulnar Neuropathy at the Elbow

Key findings include:

• Reduced conduction velocity across the elbow segment (<50 m/s)
• Conduction block or temporal dispersion across the elbow

• 10 m/s difference in conduction velocity between above-elbow and below-elbow segments (Beekman et al., 2004)

Peroneal Neuropathy at the Fibular Head

Characteristic findings:

• Conduction block across the fibular head
• Normal distal motor and sensory responses
• Preserved sural sensory response

Polyneuropathies

Axonal Polyneuropathies (e.g., diabetic polyneuropathy)

Typical pattern:

• Reduced sensory and motor amplitudes
• Relatively preserved latencies and conduction velocities
• Length-dependent pattern (lower limbs affected before upper limbs)
• Minimal temporal dispersion or conduction block

Demyelinating Polyneuropathies (e.g., CIDP, GBS)

Common findings:

• Markedly reduced conduction velocities (<70-80% of lower limit of normal)
• Prolonged distal latencies (>130% of upper limit of normal)
• Conduction block and temporal dispersion
• Prolonged or absent F-waves
• Abnormalities not limited to entrapment sites (England et al., 2005)

Advanced Parameters and Special Studies

Late Responses

F-waves assess proximal nerve segments and are particularly useful in:

• Guillain-Barré syndrome (prolonged or absent early in disease course)
• Proximal nerve lesions
• Radiculopathies

H-reflexes are most commonly recorded from the soleus muscle and are useful in:

• S1 radiculopathy (absent or prolonged H-reflex)
• Polyneuropathies (symmetrically absent H-reflexes)

Blink Reflexes

Assess the trigeminal-facial reflex arc and are valuable in:

• Facial neuropathy
• Brainstem lesions
• Trigeminal neuropathy

Repetitive Nerve Stimulation

Used to diagnose neuromuscular junction disorders:

• Myasthenia gravis: Decremental response (>10% reduction in amplitude) at low rates (3-5 Hz)
• Lambert-Eaton syndrome: Incremental response (>100% increase) at high rates (20-50 Hz)

Clinical Correlations and Common Pitfalls

Integration with Clinical Findings

NCS results should always be interpreted in the clinical context. Discordance between clinical and electrophysiological findings warrants careful review and consideration of:

• Technical factors
• Anatomical variations
• Coexisting pathologies
• Early stage disease

Common Pitfalls

1. Technical errors:

   • Inadequate stimulation
   • Incorrect electrode placement
   • Temperature effects

2. Misdiagnosis of polyneuropathy:

   • Age-related changes can mimic mild polyneuropathy
   • Reference values may not account for age, height, and other variables

3. Overreliance on specific parameters:

   • Single abnormal value rarely establishes diagnosis
   • Pattern recognition more valuable than isolated findings

4. Inadequate sampling:

   • Limited studies may miss focal or asymmetric abnormalities
   • Complementary needle EMG often necessary

Special Considerations in Common Clinical Scenarios

Diabetic Neuropathy

Typical NCS findings include:

• Length-dependent sensory and motor axonal loss
• Relative sparing of upper limbs in early disease
• Superimposed entrapment neuropathies common (particularly median at wrist)

A reduced sural/radial sensory amplitude ratio (<0.4) is highly sensitive for early diabetic polyneuropathy (Perkins et al., 2001).

Inflammatory Neuropathies

Acute Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (AIDP/GBS)

Sequential studies may show:

• Early abnormalities in F-waves and H-reflexes
• Progression to demyelinating features over 2-3 weeks
• Conduction block in intermediate nerve segments
• "Sural sparing" pattern (abnormal median/ulnar sensory with preserved sural sensory)

Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP)

Diagnostic criteria include:

• Definite demyelinating features in at least two nerves
• Prolonged distal latencies
• Reduced conduction velocities
• Prolonged F-wave latencies
• Conduction block or temporal dispersion
• Elevated CSF protein with normal cell count (Van den Bergh et al., 2010)

Radiculopathies

NCS findings are often normal in pure radiculopathies, but may show:

• Normal sensory responses (dorsal root ganglion distal to lesion)
• Reduced motor amplitudes in severe or chronic cases
• Abnormal late responses (H-reflexes, F-waves)

Needle EMG is more sensitive than NCS for radiculopathies.

Emerging Techniques and Future Directions

Recent advances in nerve conduction assessment include:

• Near-nerve recording techniques: Enhanced sensitivity for early neuropathy
• Motor unit number estimation (MUNE): Quantifies motor neuron/axon loss
• Nerve excitability testing: Assesses axonal membrane properties
• Automated analysis algorithms: Improves diagnostic consistency

These techniques promise to improve diagnostic sensitivity and provide deeper insights into pathophysiology.

Conclusion

Nerve conduction studies remain an essential tool in the evaluation of peripheral nerve disorders. Their proper interpretation requires understanding of technical factors, recognition of common patterns of abnormality, and integration with clinical findings. By applying a systematic approach to NCS interpretation, physicians can enhance diagnostic accuracy and optimize patient management.

References

1. Beekman R, Van Der Plas JP, Uitdehaag BM, et al. (2004). Clinical, electrodiagnostic, and sonographic studies in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve, 30(2):202-208.

2. Dumitru D, Amato AA, Zwarts MJ. (2002). Electrodiagnostic Medicine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Hanley & Belfus.

3. England JD, Gronseth GS, Franklin G, et al. (2005). Distal symmetric polyneuropathy: a definition for clinical research. Neurology, 64(2):199-207.

4. Jablecki CK, Andary MT, Floeter MK, et al. (2002). Practice parameter: Electrodiagnostic studies in carpal tunnel syndrome. Neurology, 58(11):1589-1592.

5. Perkins BA, Olaleye D, Bril V. (2001). Carpal tunnel syndrome in patients with diabetic polyneuropathy. Diabetes Care, 24(9):1764-1769.

6. Preston DC, Shapiro BE. (2013). Electromyography and Neuromuscular Disorders: Clinical-Electrophysiologic Correlations. 3rd ed. London: Elsevier.

7. Van den Bergh PY, Hadden RD, Bouche P, et al. (2010). European Federation of Neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society guideline on management of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. Eur J Neurol, 17(3):356-363.

8. Kimura J. (2013). Electrodiagnosis in Diseases of Nerve and Muscle: Principles and Practice. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

9. Buschbacher RM, Prahlow ND. (2006). Manual of Nerve Conduction Studies. 2nd ed. New York: Demos Medical Publishing.

10. Fuglsang-Frederiksen A. (2006). The role of different EMG methods in evaluating myopathy. Clin Neurophysiol, 117(6):1173-1189.

Approach to Persistent Hypokalemia

 An Approach to Persistent Hypokalemia

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude. ai

Persistent hypokalemia represents a common yet challenging clinical scenario that requires a systematic approach to diagnosis and management. This review examines the pathophysiology, diagnostic workup, and treatment strategies for patients presenting with recurrent or refractory low potassium levels.

 Introduction

Hypokalemia, defined as a serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/L, is one of the most frequently encountered electrolyte disorders in clinical practice. While mild, transient episodes may be asymptomatic and easily correctable, persistent hypokalemia poses significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. It can lead to serious complications including cardiac arrhythmias, rhabdomyolysis, and paralysis if left untreated or inadequately managed.

 Pathophysiology

The maintenance of normal potassium homeostasis involves a complex interplay between intake, transcellular shifts, and excretion. Total body potassium is approximately 3,500 mmol in adults, with only 2% present in the extracellular fluid. The majority (98%) resides intracellularly, primarily in skeletal muscle. This distribution is maintained by Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase pumps in cell membranes.

Persistent hypokalemia can result from three primary mechanisms:

1. Inadequate intake

2. Transcellular shift (redistribution)

3. Excessive losses (renal or extrarenal)

Inadequate Intake

While rare as a sole cause in developed countries, inadequate dietary intake may contribute to hypokalemia in malnourished patients, those with eating disorders, or individuals on severely restricted diets. Normal daily potassium requirements range from 40-120 mmol.

 

Transcellular Shift

Potassium can shift from the extracellular to the intracellular compartment in response to various stimuli:

- Insulin excess (endogenous or exogenous)

- β-adrenergic stimulation

- Alkalosis (metabolic or respiratory)

- Periodic paralysis (hypokalemic)

- Rapid cell proliferation (e.g., acute leukemia)

- Hypothermia

- Barium intoxication

Excessive Losses

Most cases of persistent hypokalemia involve excessive losses, either renal or extrarenal:

 Renal Losses

- Primary hyperaldosteronism

- Secondary hyperaldosteronism (heart failure, cirrhosis, nephrotic syndrome)

- Cushing's syndrome

- Congenital adrenal hyperplasia

- Apparent mineralocorticoid excess

- Liddle syndrome

- Gitelman syndrome

- Bartter syndrome

- Renal tubular acidosis (types 1 and 2)

- Diuretic therapy

- Magnesium depletion

- Antibiotics (aminoglycosides, amphotericin B)

- Post-obstructive diuresis

- Polyuria (diabetes insipidus, osmotic diuresis)

Extrarenal Losses

- Gastrointestinal losses (vomiting, diarrhea, laxative abuse)

- Excessive sweating

- Integumentary losses (burns, severe dermatitis)

Clinical Manifestations

The clinical presentation of hypokalemia depends on its severity and rate of development:

- Mild (3.0-3.5 mmol/L): Often asymptomatic

- Moderate (2.5-3.0 mmol/L): Fatigue, myalgia, muscle weakness, constipation

- Severe (<2.5 mmol/L): Paralysis, respiratory compromise, rhabdomyolysis

Cardiac manifestations include:

- ECG changes (flattened T waves, ST depression, U waves)

- Arrhythmias (particularly in patients with underlying heart disease or those taking digoxin)

- Increased risk of sudden cardiac death

Neuromuscular symptoms typically affect proximal muscles first and can progress to ascending paralysis. Smooth muscle dysfunction can lead to ileus and urinary retention.

Diagnostic Approach

 

History and Physical Examination

A thorough history should focus on:

- Medication use (diuretics, laxatives, insulin, β-agonists, antibiotics)

- Dietary habits

- Gastrointestinal symptoms

- Family history (for hereditary conditions)

- Presence of hypertension (suggesting mineralocorticoid excess)

Physical examination may reveal:

- Hypertension

- Muscle weakness

- Signs of volume depletion or expansion

- Features of underlying endocrinopathies

 Initial Laboratory Evaluation

1. Confirm hypokalemia with repeat measurement

2. Complete blood count

3. Comprehensive metabolic panel (including magnesium, calcium, phosphate)

4. Arterial or venous blood gas analysis

5. Urinalysis

6. ECG

 Specialized Testing

Spot Urine Potassium

- K⁺ <15 mEq/L suggests extrarenal losses

- K⁺ >15-20 mEq/L suggests renal losses

 24-hour Urine Potassium

- <15 mEq/day: Extrarenal losses or transcellular shift

- >20 mEq/day: Inappropriate renal losses

Transtubular Potassium Gradient (TTKG)

TTKG = (Urine K⁺/Serum K⁺) ÷ (Urine osmolality/Serum osmolality)

- <3: Appropriate renal response

- >7: Inappropriate renal potassium wasting

 Acid-Base Status

- Metabolic acidosis: Suggests RTA, diarrhea

- Metabolic alkalosis: Suggests vomiting, diuretic use, mineralocorticoid excess

 Endocrine Evaluation

- Plasma renin activity

- Aldosterone levels

- Cortisol (24-hour urine or dexamethasone suppression test)

 

Genetic Testing

For suspected hereditary disorders (Gitelman, Bartter syndromes)

Systematic Diagnostic Framework

Step 1: Determine the Mechanism

- Inadequate intake

- Transcellular shift

- Excessive losses (renal vs. extrarenal)

Step 2: If Renal Losses, Assess Blood Pressure

- Hypertension: Consider mineralocorticoid excess

- Normotension: Consider tubular disorders, diuretics, magnesium depletion

 Step 3: Evaluate Acid-Base Status

- Metabolic acidosis: Consider RTA, diarrhea

- Metabolic alkalosis: Consider vomiting, diuretics, mineralocorticoid excess

Step 4: Assess Volume Status

- Volume depletion: Consider diuretics, GI losses

- Volume expansion: Consider mineralocorticoid excess

 Management Strategies

Acute Management

For severe or symptomatic hypokalemia:

- IV potassium chloride: 10-20 mEq/hour (not exceeding 40 mEq/hour in critical situations)

- Cardiac monitoring for rates >10 mEq/hour

- Central venous access for concentrations >60 mEq/L

- Address life-threatening arrhythmias

 Chronic Management

 Oral Replacement

- Potassium chloride: 40-100 mEq/day in divided doses

- Potassium citrate if metabolic acidosis present

 Treat Underlying Cause

- Discontinue offending medications

- Correct magnesium deficiency

- Specific treatments based on etiology:

  - Primary hyperaldosteronism: Surgical adrenalectomy or spironolactone

  - Cushing's syndrome: Surgical or medical management

  - Gitelman/Bartter syndrome: K⁺ supplements, potassium-sparing diuretics, NSAIDs

  - RTA: Alkali therapy plus potassium

Potassium-Sparing Strategies

- Potassium-sparing diuretics (spironolactone, amiloride, triamterene)

- ACE inhibitors or ARBs

- Dietary modifications (high-potassium foods)

Special Considerations

Refractory Hypokalemia

Defined as persistent hypokalemia despite adequate replacement, consider:

- Concomitant magnesium deficiency

- Ongoing unidentified losses

- Poor compliance with therapy

- Pseudo-hypokalemia (laboratory error)

 Magnesium's Role

Magnesium deficiency often coexists with hypokalemia and can impede potassium repletion by:

- Increasing renal potassium wasting

- Altering Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase function

Correction of magnesium deficits should precede or accompany potassium replacement.

Hypokalemia in Special Populations

 Elderly

- Higher risk of drug-induced hypokalemia

- More susceptible to cardiac complications

- May require lower replacement rates

 Chronic Kidney Disease

- Altered potassium handling

- Risk of hyperkalemia with excessive supplementation

- Careful monitoring required

Conclusion

Persistent hypokalemia represents a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge requiring a systematic approach. Identification of the underlying mechanism is crucial for effective management. Beyond simple potassium replacement, addressing the root cause and optimizing factors that influence potassium homeostasis are essential for successful long-term management.

References

1. Gumz ML, Rabinowitz L, Wingo CS. An Integrated View of Potassium Homeostasis. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(1):60-72.

2. Palmer BF, Clegg DJ. Physiology and Pathophysiology of Potassium Homeostasis: Core Curriculum 2019. Am J Kidney Dis. 2019;74(5):682-695.

3. Unwin RJ, Luft FC, Shirley DG. Pathophysiology and management of hypokalemia: a clinical perspective. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2011;7(2):75-84.

4. Viera AJ, Wouk N. Potassium Disorders: Hypokalemia and Hyperkalemia. Am Fam Physician. 2015;92(6):487-495.

5. Sterns RH, Grieff M, Bernstein PL. Treatment of hypokalemia: Something old, something new. Kidney Int. 2016;89(3):546-554.

6. Kardalas E, Paschou SA, Anagnostis P, et al. Hypokalemia: a clinical update. Endocr Connect. 2018;7(4):R135-R146.

7. Greenlee M, Wingo CS, McDonough AA, et al. Narrative review: evolving concepts in potassium homeostasis and hypokalemia. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(9):619-625.

8. Mount DB. Fluid and Electrolyte Disturbances. In: Jameson JL, Fauci AS, Kasper DL, et al., eds. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. 20th ed. McGraw-Hill; 2018.

9. Crop MJ, Hoorn EJ, Lindemans J, Zietse R. Hypokalaemia and subsequent hyperkalaemia in hospitalized patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007;22(12):3471-3477.

10. Huang CL, Kuo E. Mechanism of hypokalemia in magnesium deficiency. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;18(10):2649-2652.

11. Gennari FJ. Hypokalemia. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(7):451-458.

12. Cohn JN, Kowey PR, Whelton PK, Prisant LM. New guidelines for potassium replacement in clinical practice: a contemporary review by the National Council on Potassium in Clinical Practice. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(16):2429-2436.

13. Arampatzis S, Funk GC, Leichtle AB, et al. Impact of diuretic therapy-associated electrolyte disorders present on admission to the emergency department: a cross-sectional analysis. BMC Med. 2013;11:83.

14. Lin SH, Halperin ML. Hypokalemia: a practical approach to diagnosis and its genetic basis. Curr Med Chem. 2007;14(14):1551-1565.

15. Weiner ID, Wingo CS. Hypokalemia--consequences, causes, and correction. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1997;8(7):1179-1188.

Home Oxygen Therapy in Chronic Respiratory Illnesses

   Home Oxygen Therapy in Chronic Respiratory Illnesses: A Comprehensive Review

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude. ai

Abstract

Home oxygen therapy (HOT) represents a cornerstone intervention for patients with chronic respiratory illnesses experiencing hypoxemia. This review synthesizes current evidence on the indications, benefits, delivery methods, monitoring approaches, and challenges associated with HOT across various chronic respiratory conditions. We examine the evolving evidence base supporting HOT use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung disease (ILD), pulmonary hypertension, and other respiratory conditions. Additionally, we discuss emerging technologies, healthcare delivery models, and areas requiring further research to optimize HOT implementation. Recent studies highlighting the importance of adherence, patient education, and personalized approaches to oxygen prescription are emphasized, along with the cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life implications of this intervention. This review provides clinicians with an evidence-based framework for prescribing and managing HOT to improve outcomes in patients with chronic respiratory diseases.

 Introduction

Chronic respiratory diseases affect hundreds of millions of people worldwide and represent a substantial burden on healthcare systems globally. Home oxygen therapy (HOT) has been a mainstay treatment for chronic respiratory illnesses associated with hypoxemia for over four decades, following landmark trials that demonstrated survival benefits in hypoxemic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (1,2). While the evidence base was initially established in COPD, HOT is now prescribed across numerous respiratory conditions including interstitial lung disease (ILD), pulmonary hypertension, cystic fibrosis, and bronchiectasis (3).

HOT aims to correct hypoxemia, reduce the work of breathing, decrease pulmonary hypertension, and improve exercise capacity and quality of life (4). Despite its widespread use, significant variations exist in prescription practices, reimbursement policies, and delivery models across healthcare systems (5). Furthermore, advances in oxygen delivery technology, telemonitoring capabilities, and our understanding of the physiological effects of supplemental oxygen have necessitated a reassessment of how HOT is implemented in clinical practice.

This review examines the current evidence for HOT across various chronic respiratory conditions, analyzes optimal delivery methods and monitoring approaches, and discusses emerging trends and challenges in this field. We aim to provide healthcare professionals with updated, evidence-based guidance on HOT prescription and management to optimize patient outcomes.

 Physiological Rationale for Oxygen Therapy

The primary goal of oxygen therapy is to correct hypoxemia, defined as reduced oxygen levels in the blood. Chronic hypoxemia triggers compensatory mechanisms including pulmonary vasoconstriction, erythrocytosis, and increased cardiopulmonary workload, which can lead to cor pulmonale, right heart failure, and decreased exercise capacity (6). Supplemental oxygen counteracts these physiological derangements through several mechanisms:

1. Improved oxygen delivery: By increasing the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂), HOT enhances alveolar oxygen tension and oxygen transfer across the alveolar-capillary membrane (7).

2. Reduced pulmonary vascular resistance: Oxygen therapy attenuates hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction, potentially reducing pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular afterload (8).

3. Decreased respiratory drive: Correction of hypoxemia reduces stimulation of peripheral chemoreceptors, potentially decreasing dyspnea and the work of breathing (9).

4. Improved exercise capacity: Supplemental oxygen during exercise can decrease dynamic hyperinflation in COPD patients and improve exercise tolerance (10).

5. Reduced oxidative stress: While paradoxical, appropriately titrated oxygen therapy may reduce systemic inflammation and oxidative stress markers associated with chronic hypoxemia (11).

Understanding these physiological mechanisms is crucial for determining appropriate oxygen prescription parameters and interpreting patient responses to therapy.

Indications for Home Oxygen Therapy

 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)

The strongest evidence for survival benefit with long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) comes from two landmark randomized controlled trials: the British Medical Research Council (MRC) study and the Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy Trial (NOTT) (1,2). These studies demonstrated mortality benefits in COPD patients with severe resting hypoxemia (PaO₂ ≤55 mmHg or PaO₂ ≤59 mmHg with evidence of end-organ damage such as cor pulmonale or erythrocytosis).

Current guidelines generally recommend LTOT for COPD patients with:

- PaO₂ ≤55 mmHg or SaO₂ ≤88% at rest, or

- PaO₂ 56-59 mmHg or SaO₂ ≤89% with evidence of right heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, or polycythemia (hematocrit >55%) (12).

The Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT) challenged previous assumptions by finding no benefit of oxygen therapy in COPD patients with moderate resting or exercise-induced desaturation (13). However, subgroup analyses suggest certain populations may still benefit, highlighting the need for individualized assessment (14).

 Interstitial Lung Disease (ILD)

While high-quality randomized controlled trials are lacking for ILD, observational data support HOT use in ILD patients with hypoxemia using similar criteria as for COPD (15). In idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), supplemental oxygen has been associated with improved exercise capacity and quality of life (16). Current practice generally follows the same prescription thresholds as for COPD, although some experts advocate for earlier intervention given the poor prognosis and rapid progression of certain ILDs (17).

Pulmonary Hypertension

In pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and other forms of pulmonary hypertension, oxygen therapy is recommended for patients with hypoxemia to reduce pulmonary vascular resistance and right ventricular workload (18). There is particular emphasis on nocturnal oxygen therapy in these patients, as sleep-associated desaturation may exacerbate pulmonary hypertension (19).

 Other Conditions

HOT is also prescribed in:

- Cystic fibrosis: Similar criteria as COPD, with emphasis on supporting exercise and activities of daily living (20).

- Bronchiectasis: Based on hypoxemia thresholds comparable to COPD (21).

- Neuromuscular disorders with respiratory involvement: May focus on nocturnal support and palliative symptom relief (22).

- Palliative care: Oxygen may be used for symptomatic relief of dyspnea even in the absence of hypoxemia, although evidence for this practice is mixed (23).

Assessment and Prescription of Home Oxygen

Initial Assessment

Comprehensive assessment before prescribing HOT should include:

1. Arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis: The gold standard for assessing oxygenation status, ideally performed while the patient is breathing room air and in a stable clinical state (at least 4-6 weeks after an exacerbation) (24).

2. Pulse oximetry: While less accurate than ABG, continuous pulse oximetry may help assess oxygen saturation during various activities and sleep (25).

3. Exercise assessment: Six-minute walk test (6MWT) or other functional tests with continuous oximetry to evaluate exercise-induced desaturation (26).

4. Overnight oximetry: To identify nocturnal hypoxemia, particularly in patients with normal daytime oxygenation (27).

5. Assessment of comorbidities: Particularly cardiac conditions that may influence oxygen requirements (28).

 Prescription Parameters

HOT prescription should specify:

1. Flow rate or oxygen percentage: Titrated to achieve SpO₂ ≥90% or PaO₂ ≥60 mmHg, or individualized targets based on patient factors (29).

2. Duration of use: LTOT is typically prescribed for ≥15-18 hours/day, including nighttime hours, based on NOTT findings showing greater benefit with continuous versus nocturnal-only use (2).

3. Delivery method: Selection of appropriate devices (concentrators, liquid oxygen, compressed gas) and interfaces (nasal cannula, mask, transtracheal delivery) based on patient needs and lifestyle (30).

4. Activity-specific settings: Different flow rates may be needed for rest, exercise, and sleep (31).

5. Ambulatory requirements: Assessment of mobility needs and appropriate portable systems (32).

Delivery Systems and Technologies

Stationary Systems

1. Oxygen concentrators: These devices extract oxygen from ambient air using zeolite molecular sieves. Modern concentrators are energy-efficient, relatively quiet, and can deliver oxygen flows up to 10 L/min with concentrations of 87-95% (33). High-flow concentrators capable of delivering up to 15 L/min are available for patients with higher oxygen requirements.

2. Liquid oxygen systems: Comprised of a stationary reservoir and refillable portable units. These systems store oxygen in liquid form at extremely cold temperatures, converting it to gas for patient use. They provide higher purity oxygen (>99%) and can accommodate high flow rates, but are more expensive and require regular deliveries (34).

3. Compressed oxygen cylinders: Typically used as backup for concentrators or for short-term therapy. Modern systems include electronic regulators that can extend cylinder life (35).

Portable Systems

1. Portable oxygen concentrators (POCs): Available in pulse-dose (delivering oxygen only during inspiration) and continuous flow models. Technological advances have reduced size and weight while improving battery life, though many units still cannot provide high flow rates (36).

2. Portable liquid systems: Offer high-purity oxygen in a relatively lightweight package but require refilling from a stationary unit (37).

3. Lightweight compressed oxygen cylinders: With advanced composite materials and conserving devices, these provide greater mobility than traditional cylinders (38).

Delivery Interfaces

1. Nasal cannulas: Standard for most patients, delivering 1-6 L/min with FiO₂ ranging from approximately 24-44% depending on flow rate and patient's breathing pattern (39).

2. High-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC): Increasingly used in home settings for patients requiring higher flow rates. These systems deliver heated and humidified oxygen at flows up to 60 L/min, providing some level of positive pressure and reducing anatomical dead space (40).

3. Transtracheal oxygen catheters: Surgically implanted catheters that deliver oxygen directly to the trachea, increasing efficiency and potentially reducing flow requirements by 50%. Despite advantages including improved cosmesis and reduced nasal complications, their use has declined due to complication risks and maintenance requirements (41).

4. Reservoir cannulas and masks: Conserving devices that store oxygen during exhalation for delivery during the subsequent inspiration, potentially increasing efficiency by 2-4 times compared to standard cannulas (42).

 Oxygen-Conserving Technologies

1. Pulse-dose delivery systems: Deliver a bolus of oxygen at the beginning of inspiration rather than continuously, potentially reducing oxygen usage by 50-75% (43).

2. Demand oxygen delivery systems (DODS): More sophisticated than simple pulse-dose systems, these adjust delivery based on breathing pattern and can maintain consistent FiO₂ across varying respiratory rates (44).

3. Hybrid systems: Combine features of continuous flow and conserving technologies, offering efficiency while maintaining adequate oxygenation during sleep and exercise (45).

 Monitoring and Follow-up

 Initial Follow-up

After HOT initiation, assessment should occur within 1-3 months to evaluate:

- Adherence to prescribed regimen

- Symptom improvement

- Oxygenation status on the prescribed flow rate

- Equipment functioning and patient competence with use

- Development of complications (46)

 Long-term Monitoring

Ongoing monitoring typically includes:

1. Regular clinical assessment: Evaluating symptoms, exercise capacity, and quality of life every 3-6 months (47).

2. Oxygenation monitoring: Periodic pulse oximetry and/or ABG analysis to ensure adequacy of prescribed oxygen (48).

3. Adherence assessment: Through self-reporting, equipment hour meters, and increasingly through integrated monitoring technologies (49).

4. Equipment maintenance: Regular checks of equipment function, including oxygen purity testing for concentrators (50).

Remote Monitoring Technologies

Emerging technologies are transforming HOT monitoring:

1. Integrated monitoring systems: Modern oxygen delivery systems increasingly incorporate usage tracking, flow rate monitoring, and even patient oxygenation data (51).

2. Wearable oximeters: Connected devices allowing continuous SpO₂ monitoring with data transmission to healthcare providers (52).

3. Smartphone applications: Facilitating patient reporting, education, and communication with providers (53).

4. Telehealth platforms: Enabling remote assessments and adjustments to oxygen prescription (54).

These technologies may improve adherence, allow earlier intervention for deterioration, and reduce healthcare utilization, though evidence for their cost-effectiveness is still evolving (55).

Clinical Outcomes and Benefits

Survival Benefits

The survival benefit of LTOT is best established in COPD with severe resting hypoxemia. The MRC trial demonstrated a 5-year survival rate of 41.8% in the oxygen therapy group versus 28.7% in controls, while the NOTT study found significantly better survival with continuous versus nocturnal-only oxygen (1,2). A more recent retrospective analysis of HOT in oxygen-dependent COPD patients confirmed these findings with a hazard ratio for death of 0.57 (95% CI 0.33-0.98) compared to matched controls without HOT (56).

Evidence for survival benefits in other respiratory conditions is less robust but suggests potential advantages in severe interstitial lung disease and pulmonary hypertension (57,58).

Physiological Benefits

HOT has demonstrated several physiological benefits:

1. Reduction in pulmonary hypertension: Long-term oxygen therapy can partially reverse or prevent progression of pulmonary hypertension in chronic respiratory disease (59).

2. Decreased hematocrit: Correction of hypoxemia reduces erythropoietin stimulus and can normalize elevated hematocrit levels (60).

3. Improved exercise capacity: Particularly documented in exercise-induced hypoxemia, with enhanced endurance and peak performance (61).

4. Reduced dynamic hyperinflation: In COPD patients, oxygen supplementation during exercise can reduce hyperinflation and associated dyspnea (62).

5. Improved cognitive function: Correction of hypoxemia may improve neuropsychological performance and sleep quality (63).

Quality of Life and Functional Status

Impact on quality of life (QoL) has shown mixed results:

1. Disease-specific QoL measures: Some studies show improvements in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) scores with adequate HOT use (64).

2. Symptom burden: Consistent evidence for reduced dyspnea with appropriately prescribed oxygen (65).

3. Functional independence: Improved ability to perform activities of daily living, particularly with ambulatory oxygen (66).

4. Sleep quality: Improvement in sleep architecture and quality with correction of nocturnal hypoxemia (67).

The heterogeneity in QoL outcomes likely reflects variations in adherence, appropriate prescription, and the multifactorial nature of quality of life in chronic respiratory disease (68).

 Healthcare Utilization

HOT may impact healthcare utilization through several mechanisms:

1. Hospitalization rates: Some studies suggest reduced hospital admissions with appropriate HOT use, particularly in COPD (69).

2. Exacerbation frequency: Mixed evidence regarding impact on acute exacerbations, with some studies showing reduced frequency and others showing no difference (70).

3. Healthcare costs: While HOT represents a significant direct cost, cost-effectiveness analyses generally support its use in appropriately selected patients when considering reduced hospitalizations and improved quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (71).

 Special Considerations

Exercise and Ambulatory Oxygen

Ambulatory oxygen is prescribed for patients who:

- Use LTOT and wish to maintain mobility

- Demonstrate exercise-induced desaturation without resting hypoxemia

- Show improved exercise performance with supplemental oxygen

The evidence for ambulatory oxygen in patients without resting hypoxemia remains controversial. The LOTT trial found no benefit in patients with moderate resting or exercise-induced desaturation (13). However, individual patients may show meaningful improvements in exercise capacity and symptoms (72).

Prescription should be based on titration during functional exercise tests, with demonstration of improved performance and symptom relief (73). Modern portable delivery systems have improved convenience but still face limitations in weight, duration, and flow capabilities (74).

Air Travel

Commercial aircraft typically maintain cabin pressure equivalent to 5,000-8,000 feet altitude, resulting in reduced partial pressure of oxygen. Patients requiring HOT and those with marginal oxygenation status may need:

1. Pre-flight assessment: Hypoxic challenge testing or altitude simulation using the 40% FiO₂ to 15% FiO₂ equation to predict in-flight PaO₂ (75).

2. Supplemental in-flight oxygen: Arranged in advance with airlines, with specific flow rates determined by pre-flight assessment (76).

3. Portable oxygen concentrator use: Airlines increasingly permit approved POCs during flights (77).

Guidelines recommend in-flight oxygen for patients with resting SpO₂ ≤95% at sea level and those with risk factors including severe COPD, ILD, pulmonary hypertension, or recent exacerbation (78).

Palliative Care Settings

Oxygen use in palliative care presents unique considerations:

1. Symptomatic relief of dyspnea: Evidence suggests that oxygen may not be superior to air for dyspnea relief in non-hypoxemic patients, though individual responses vary (79).

2.Fan therapy: Simple fan use directed at the face may provide similar symptomatic relief through trigeminal nerve stimulation (80).

3. Balancing benefits against burdens: The potential psychological burden, reduced mobility, and social isolation associated with oxygen equipment must be considered (81).

4. Quality of life focus: Emphasis shifts from physiological targets to symptom management and patient priorities (82).

Current recommendations suggest a trial of oxygen therapy in palliative care patients with refractory dyspnea, with continuation based on symptomatic benefit rather than oxygenation targets (83).

Pediatric Considerations

HOT in children with chronic respiratory conditions requires specialized approaches:

1. Developmental considerations: Equipment and interfaces must be age-appropriate, and monitoring strategies must account for developmental stages (84).

2. Growth and development: Oxygen requirements may change rapidly with growth, requiring more frequent reassessment (85).

3. Educational needs: Supporting normal education and socialization while maintaining therapy (86).

4. Family dynamics: Greater emphasis on family education and support systems (87).

Conditions commonly requiring HOT in pediatric populations include bronchopulmonary dysplasia, cystic fibrosis, pulmonary hypertension, and neuromuscular disorders with respiratory involvement (88).

Adherence and Patient Education

Adherence Challenges

Despite proven benefits, adherence to prescribed HOT regimens remains suboptimal, with studies reporting average daily usage of 45-70% of prescribed hours (89). Barriers to adherence include:

1. Physical barriers: Equipment weight, noise, physical discomfort, and mobility restrictions (90).

2. Psychological factors: Embarrassment, perceived stigma, anxiety, and depression (91).

3. Knowledge deficits: Misunderstanding of proper use, benefits, and importance of adherence (92).

4. System barriers: Inadequate follow-up, equipment maintenance issues, and reimbursement challenges (93).

 

Improving Adherence

Effective strategies to enhance adherence include:

1. Comprehensive education: Clear explanation of the rationale, benefits, and proper use of oxygen equipment (94).

2. Motivational interviewing: Patient-centered approach addressing ambivalence about therapy (95).

3. Addressing practical barriers: Optimizing equipment selection, home setup, and resolving physical complaints (96).

4. Psychological support: Addressing anxiety, depression, and perceived stigma associated with oxygen use (97).

5. Remote monitoring with feedback: Providing patients and providers with adherence data to guide interventions (98).

6. Caregiver education: Involving family members or caregivers in educational efforts (99).

Structured Educational Programs

Formal patient education programs typically include:

1. Initial intensive education: Hands-on training with equipment, written materials, and demonstration-return demonstration (100).

2. Follow-up reinforcement: Scheduled reassessment of technique and understanding (101).

3. Problem-solving strategies: Addressing common issues such as nasal irritation, equipment failures, and travel concerns (102).

4. Peer support: Connection with other HOT users through support groups or mentoring programs (103).

5. Digital resources: Video tutorials, smartphone applications, and online communities (104).

Studies suggest that structured educational interventions can improve adherence by 21-50% compared to standard care (105).

## Emerging Trends and Future Directions

### Precision Medicine Approaches

The future of HOT may involve more individualized prescription based on:

1. **Phenotyping**: Identifying responder populations based on clinical, physiological, and genetic characteristics (106).

2. **Dynamic prescription**: Varying oxygen delivery based on activity, time of day, and physiological status rather than fixed flow rates (107).

3. **Predictive modeling**: Using artificial intelligence to predict optimal oxygen prescription parameters based on patient characteristics (108).

### Technological Innovations

Emerging technologies likely to impact HOT include:

1. Smart delivery systems: Oxygen sources that automatically adjust flow based on activity level, oxygenation status, and environmental factors (109).

2. Miniaturization: Continued development of smaller, lighter, longer-lasting portable systems (110).

3. Alternative gas delivery: Development of respiratory stimulants and other approaches that may complement or replace conventional oxygen therapy in certain conditions (111).

4. **Integrated monitoring**: Seamless integration of oxygen delivery systems with monitoring platforms and electronic health records (112).

Evolving Delivery Models

Healthcare delivery for HOT patients is evolving toward:

1. Telehealth integration: Remote management of HOT, including virtual visits, remote prescription adjustments, and troubleshooting (113).

2. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation: Integration of HOT with comprehensive rehabilitation programs delivered in the home setting (114).

3. Integrated respiratory care services: Comprehensive management of respiratory patients by specialized services handling oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, and airway clearance needs (115).

4. Value-based reimbursement models: Shift from fee-for-service to outcomes-based payment for home oxygen services (116).

Research Priorities

Key areas requiring further investigation include:

1. Optimal prescription parameters for non-COPD conditions where evidence remains limited (117).

2. Patient-reported outcomes specifically validated for oxygen therapy (118).

3. Cost-effectivenessof newer technologies and delivery models (119).

4. Implementation science approaches to improve guideline adherence and reduce inappropriate variation in practice (120).

5. Novel physiological endpoints

 beyond oxygenation that may better reflect therapeutic benefits (121).

 Conclusion

Home oxygen therapy remains a cornerstone intervention for patients with chronic respiratory diseases and hypoxemia. While the strongest evidence supports its use in hypoxemic COPD patients, evolving research continues to refine our understanding of its benefits in other conditions. Technological advances have dramatically improved delivery options, though challenges in adherence, optimal prescription, and healthcare delivery models persist.

Future directions in HOT will likely focus on precision medicine approaches, integration of smart technologies, and development of comprehensive care models that situate oxygen therapy within broader respiratory care strategies. As our understanding of the physiological effects of chronic hypoxemia and oxygen supplementation continues to evolve, so too will our approach to this essential therapy. Healthcare providers must stay abreast of these developments to optimize outcomes for the growing population of patients with chronic respiratory illness requiring home oxygen support.

 References

1. Medical Research Council Working Party. Long term domiciliary oxygen therapy in chronic hypoxic cor pulmonale complicating chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Lancet. 1981;1(8222):681-686.

2. Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy Trial Group. Continuous or nocturnal oxygen therapy in hypoxemic chronic obstructive lung disease: a clinical trial. Ann Intern Med. 1980;93(3):391-398.

3. Hardinge M, Annandale J, Bourne S, et al. British Thoracic Society guidelines for home oxygen use in adults. Thorax. 2015;70(Suppl 1):i1-i43.

4. O'Driscoll BR, Howard LS, Earis J, et al. BTS guideline for oxygen use in adults in healthcare and emergency settings. Thorax. 2017;72(Suppl 1):ii1-ii90.

5. Jacobs SS, Lindell KO, Collins EG, et al. Patient perceptions of the adequacy of supplemental oxygen therapy: results of the American Thoracic Society Nursing Assembly Oxygen Working Group survey. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2018;15(1):24-32.

6. Kent BD, Mitchell PD, McNicholas WT. Hypoxemia in patients with COPD: cause, effects, and disease progression. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2011;6:199-208.

7. Leach RM, Treacher DF. The pulmonary physician in critical care: oxygen delivery and consumption in the critically ill. Thorax. 2002;57(2):170-177.

8. Barbera JA, Blanco I. Pulmonary hypertension in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: advances in pathophysiology and management. Drugs. 2009;69(9):1153-1171.

9. O'Donnell DE, Banzett RB, Carrieri-Kohlman V, et al. Pathophysiology of dyspnea in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a roundtable. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2007;4(2):145-168.

10. Somfay A, Porszasz J, Lee SM, et al. Dose-response effect of oxygen on hyperinflation and exercise endurance in nonhypoxaemic COPD patients. Eur Respir J. 2001;18(1):77-84.

11. Kirkham PA, Barnes PJ. Oxidative stress in COPD. Chest. 2013;144(1):266-273.

12. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: 2023 Report. 2023.

13. Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial Research Group. A randomized trial of long-term oxygen for COPD with moderate desaturation. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(17):1617-1627.

14. Ekström M, Ahmadi Z, Bornefalk-Hermansson A, et al. Oxygen for breathlessness in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who do not qualify for home oxygen therapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11:CD006429.

15. Visca D, Mori L, Tsipouri V, et al. Effect of ambulatory oxygen on quality of life for patients with fibrotic lung disease (AmbOx): a prospective, open-label, mixed-method, crossover randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6(10):759-770.

16. Frank RC, Hicks S, Duck AM, et al. Ambulatory oxygen in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: of what benefit? Eur Respir J. 2012;40(1):269-270.

17. Raghu G, Collard HR, Egan JJ, et al. An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT statement: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis and management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;183(6):788-824.

18. Galiè N, Humbert M, Vachiery JL, et al. 2015 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Eur Respir J. 2015;46(4):903-975.

19. Ulrich S, Fischler M, Speich R, et al. Sleep-related breathing disorders in patients with pulmonary hypertension. Chest. 2008;133(6):1375-1380.

20. Balfour-Lynn IM, Field DJ, Gringras P, et al. BTS guidelines for home oxygen in children. Thorax. 2009;64(Suppl 2):ii1-26.

21. Hill AT, Sullivan AL, Chalmers JD, et al. British Thoracic Society Guideline for bronchiectasis in adults. Thorax. 2019;74(Suppl 1):1-69.

22. Hull J, Aniapravan R, Chan E, et al. British Thoracic Society guideline for respiratory management of children with neuromuscular weakness. Thorax. 2012;67(Suppl 1):i1-40.

23. Abernethy AP, McDonald CF, Frith PA, et al. Effect of palliative oxygen versus room air in relief of breathlessness in patients with refractory dyspnoea: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9743):784-793.

24. Leggett RJ, Flenley DC. Portable oxygen and exercise tolerance in patients with chronic hypoxic cor pulmonale. Br Med J. 1977;2(6079):84-86.

25. Jubran A. Pulse oximetry. Crit Care. 2015;19:272.

26. ATS Committee on Proficiency Standards for Clinical Pulmonary Function Laboratories. ATS statement: guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(1):111-117.

27. Owens RL, Malhotra A. Sleep-disordered breathing and COPD: the overlap syndrome. Respir Care. 2010;55(10):1333-1344.

28. Hanania NA, Mullerova H, Locantore NW, et al. Determinants of depression in the ECLIPSE chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cohort. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;183(5):604-611.

29. Cranston JM, Crockett AJ, Moss JR, et al. Domiciliary oxygen for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(4):CD001744.

30. McCoy R. Options for home oxygen therapy equipment: storage and metering of oxygen in the home. Respir Care. 2013;58(1):65-81.

31. Lacasse Y, Lecours R, Pelletier C, et al. Randomised trial of ambulatory oxygen in oxygen-dependent COPD. Eur Respir J. 2005;25(6):1032-1038.

32. Branson RD. Oxygen therapy in COPD. Respir Care. 2018;63(6):734-748.

33. Chatburn RL, Williams TJ. Performance comparison of 4 portable oxygen concentrators. Respir Care. 2010;55(4):433-442.

34. O'Reilly Nugent A, Kelly PT, Stanton J, et al. Measurement of oxygen concentration delivered via nasal cannulae by tracheal sampling. Respirology. 2014;19(4):538-543.

35. Bliss PL, McCoy RW, Adams AB. Characteristics of demand oxygen delivery systems: maximum output and setting recommendations. Respir Care. 2004;49(2):160-165.

36. Leblanc CJ, Lavallée LG, King JA, et al. A comparative study of 3 portable oxygen concentrators during a 6-minute walk test in patients with chronic lung disease. Respir Care. 2013;58(10):1598-1605.

37. Chen JZ, Katz IM, Pichelin M, et al. Comparison of pulsed versus continuous oxygen delivery using realistic adult nasal airway replicas. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017;12:2559-2571.

38. Petty TL, Casaburi R. Recommendations of the Fifth Oxygen Consensus Conference. Writing and Organizing Committees. Respir Care. 2000;45(8):957-961.

39. Wettstein RB, Shelledy DC, Peters JI. Delivered oxygen concentrations using low-flow and high-flow nasal cannulas. Respir Care. 2005;50(5):604-609.

40. Nishimura M. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in adults: physiological benefits, indication, clinical benefits, and adverse effects. Respir Care. 2016;61(4):529-541.

41. Christopher KL, Schwartz MD. Transtracheal oxygen therapy. Chest. 2011;139(2):435-440.

42. Bliss PL, McCoy RW, Adams AB. A bench study comparison of demand oxygen delivery systems and continuous flow oxygen. Respir Care. 1999;44(8):925-931.

43. Kerby GR, O'Donohue WJ, Romberger DJ, et al. Clinical efficacy and cost benefit of pulse flow oxygen in hospitalized patients. Chest. 1990;97(2):369-372.

44. Tiep BL, Barnett J, Schiffman G, et al. Maintaining oxygenation via demand oxygen delivery during rest and exercise. Respir Care. 2002;47(8):887-892.

Perioperative Management of Diabetes Mellitus

 

Perioperative Management of Diabetes Mellitus: An Evidence-Based Review

Dr Neeraj Manikath ,Claude.ai

Abstract

Diabetes mellitus affects approximately 537 million adults worldwide and is associated with significant perioperative morbidity and mortality. Appropriate glycemic management during the perioperative period is essential to reduce adverse outcomes. This review summarizes current evidence-based approaches to the perioperative management of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, focusing on preoperative assessment, intraoperative glycemic control, and postoperative management strategies. Recent guidelines and consensus statements are reviewed, with special attention to emerging technologies and pharmacological advancements that have improved perioperative care. The evidence supports individualized approaches to glycemic targets, medication management, and monitoring protocols based on surgical risk, diabetes type, and patient comorbidities. Implementation of standardized perioperative protocols has been shown to improve outcomes, though significant variation in practice patterns persists. This review provides a comprehensive framework for clinicians to optimize perioperative diabetes management across the surgical continuum of care.

Keywords: diabetes mellitus, perioperative care, glycemic control, insulin therapy, surgical outcomes

Introduction

Diabetes mellitus affects more than 537 million adults globally, with projections suggesting this number will rise to 783 million by 2045 (International Diabetes Federation, 2021). Patients with diabetes undergo surgical procedures at a higher rate than the general population and face increased perioperative risks, including surgical site infections, cardiovascular events, acute kidney injury, and mortality (Duggan et al., 2017; Frisch et al., 2010). These risks are compounded by the metabolic stress response to surgery, which is characterized by insulin resistance, hyperglycemia, and altered counter-regulatory hormone secretion (Ljungqvist et al., 2018).

Perioperative glycemic management requires balancing the risks of hyperglycemia against those of hypoglycemia while accounting for fasting requirements, medication adjustments, and the metabolic impact of surgical stress. Recent advances in diabetes technologies, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems and automated insulin delivery, offer new approaches to perioperative management (Pasquel et al., 2020). Additionally, newer antihyperglycemic agents have altered the landscape of perioperative diabetes care, necessitating updated evidence-based guidelines.

This review synthesizes current evidence regarding the perioperative management of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus, with emphasis on practical approaches across the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods. We aim to provide clinicians with an evidence-based framework for optimizing perioperative outcomes in this high-risk population.

Preoperative Considerations

Risk Assessment and Glycemic Targets

Preoperative risk stratification is essential for optimizing perioperative diabetes management. Major risk factors include poor preoperative glycemic control (HbA1c >8.5%), history of severe hypoglycemia, impaired awareness of hypoglycemia, presence of micro- and macrovascular complications, and complexity of the planned procedure (Duggan et al., 2017; Membership of the Working Party et al., 2021).

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the American College of Surgeons recommend achieving preoperative HbA1c levels below 8.0% when possible, though the evidence supporting specific HbA1c thresholds remains limited (ADA, 2024; Buchleitner et al., 2012). The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) guidelines further suggest that elective surgery should be postponed for patients with HbA1c >8.5% (69 mmol/mol) when the benefits of improved glycemic control outweigh the risks of surgical delay (Membership of the Working Party et al., 2021).

Preoperative glycemic targets should be individualized based on the patient's usual glycemic control, comorbidities, and planned procedure. Generally, a fasting glucose target of 5.0-10.0 mmol/L (90-180 mg/dL) balances the risks of perioperative hyper- and hypoglycemia (Duggan et al., 2017; Umpierrez et al., 2012).

Medication Management

Type 1 Diabetes

For patients with type 1 diabetes, maintaining basal insulin is essential to prevent diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Current evidence supports:

1. Multiple Daily Injections (MDI): Patients should continue their basal insulin (glargine, detemir, degludec) at 80-100% of the usual dose on the day of surgery (Partridge et al., 2021). For NPH insulin, a 20-25% reduction in dose is recommended (Membership of the Working Party et al., 2021).

2. Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII/insulin pump): For minor procedures, patients may continue pump therapy with close monitoring. For major surgery, transition to intravenous insulin infusion is recommended (Goel et al., 2023; Nassar et al., 2022).

3. Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems: Limited evidence supports maintaining these systems during minor procedures, with case reports demonstrating safety and efficacy (Partridge et al., 2021; Umpierrez & Klonoff, 2018). However, most centers disconnect these systems for major procedures to transition to intravenous insulin.

Type 2 Diabetes

Preoperative management of oral antihyperglycemic agents and non-insulin injectables varies based on the agent's mechanism of action and the surgical context:

1. Metformin: Traditional recommendations to discontinue metformin 24-48 hours before surgery have been challenged by recent evidence. Current guidelines suggest continuing metformin until the day before surgery unless contrast agents will be used or the patient has significant renal impairment (eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73m²) (ADA, 2024; Duggan et al., 2017).

2. Sulfonylureas and Meglitinides: These should be omitted on the day of surgery due to hypoglycemia risk (Duggan et al., 2017; Membership of the Working Party et al., 2021).

3. SGLT-2 Inhibitors: These should be discontinued 3-4 days before surgery due to the risk of euglycemic DKA, particularly in catabolic states (Thiruvenkatarajan et al., 2019; Membership of the Working Party et al., 2021).

4. GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: Weekly preparations should be discontinued 7 days before major surgery, while daily preparations can be held just on the day of surgery (Duggan et al., 2017).

5. DPP-4 Inhibitors: These can generally be continued until the day before surgery (ADA, 2024).

6. Thiazolidinediones: These should be discontinued 24-48 hours before surgery due to fluid retention concerns (Membership of the Working Party et al., 2021).

7. Insulin (Type 2 Diabetes): Similar to type 1 diabetes, basal insulin should be continued at 80% of the usual dose. Prandial insulin should be withheld while NPO (Duggan et al., 2017).

Preoperative Fasting and Carbohydrate Loading

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have modified traditional fasting practices, with strong evidence supporting a reduction in preoperative fasting times to 2 hours for clear liquids and 6 hours for solid food (Ljungqvist et al., 2018). For patients with diabetes, carbohydrate loading remains controversial but may be appropriate for selected patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes (Jones et al., 2011). Limited evidence exists regarding carbohydrate loading in type 1 diabetes (Ackland et al., 2019).

Surgical Scheduling

When possible, patients with diabetes should be scheduled for the first surgical case of the day to minimize fasting duration and disruption of glycemic control (Duggan et al., 2017). For patients requiring prolonged fasting, admission the day before surgery may be necessary to establish glycemic control with intravenous insulin (Membership of the Working Party et al., 2021).

Intraoperative Management

Glycemic Targets

Intraoperative glycemic targets remain a subject of debate. Following the NICE-SUGAR trial, which demonstrated increased mortality with intensive glucose control in critically ill patients, most guidelines now recommend moderate glycemic targets of 7.8-10.0 mmol/L (140-180 mg/dL) during surgery (NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators, 2009). Tighter control (6.1-7.8 mmol/L or 110-140 mg/dL) may be appropriate for cardiac surgery patients, though the evidence remains mixed (Duggan et al., 2017; Umpierrez et al., 2012).

Monitoring Protocols

Intraoperative glucose monitoring frequency should be determined by the patient's glycemic stability, diabetes type, and surgical complexity:

1. Type 1 Diabetes: Glucose should be monitored hourly during surgery, regardless of procedure complexity (Membership of the Working Party et al., 2021).

2. Type 2 Diabetes: For major surgery, hourly monitoring is recommended. For minor procedures, every 2 hours may be sufficient if glucose values remain stable (Duggan et al., 2017).

3. Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM): Emerging evidence supports the use of CGM in the perioperative period, though concerns regarding accuracy during hemodynamic instability persist (Galindo et al., 2020; Umpierrez & Klonoff, 2018). A recent systematic review by Galindo et al. (2020) found that CGM devices maintain reasonable accuracy during surgery, but traditional point-of-care testing remains the standard for critical decision-making.

Insulin Administration

Insulin management during surgery depends on the procedure duration, complexity, and patient characteristics:

1. Minor Procedures (<2 hours, minimal metabolic stress): Subcutaneous basal insulin with correction doses may be sufficient (Umpierrez et al., 2012).

2. Major Procedures (>2 hours, significant metabolic stress): Intravenous insulin infusion is recommended, particularly for patients with type 1 diabetes, poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c >8.5%), or those undergoing cardiac, transplant, vascular, or neurosurgical procedures (Membership of the Working Party et al., 2021).

3. Insulin Infusion Protocols: Computerized protocols have demonstrated superior glycemic control compared to paper-based protocols, with reduced hypoglycemia risk (Lanspa et al., 2015). The most widely validated protocol is the Yale Insulin Infusion Protocol, which adjusts insulin rates based on current glucose value, previous glucose value, and current insulin infusion rate (Shetty et al., 2012).

Fluid Management

Dextrose-containing fluids should be administered judiciously during surgery in patients with diabetes. In patients requiring insulin infusions, concomitant dextrose 5% infusion at 100-125 mL/hour helps prevent hypoglycemia while allowing insulin titration to control hyperglycemia (Membership of the Working Party et al., 2021). In patients with significant hyperglycemia (>13.9 mmol/L or >250 mg/dL), dextrose-containing fluids should be avoided until glucose levels decrease (Duggan et al., 2017).

Postoperative Management

Transition from Intravenous to Subcutaneous Insulin

Transition from intravenous to subcutaneous insulin requires careful planning to prevent rebound hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia. Current evidence supports:

1. Calculating Total Daily Dose (TDD): The 24-hour insulin requirement should be calculated from the intravenous infusion rate during the final 6-8 hours of stability (Umpierrez et al., 2012).

2. Distribution of Subcutaneous Insulin: Typically, 50% of TDD is given as basal insulin, with the remainder as prandial insulin divided among meals. For patients NPO, only basal insulin with correction doses is administered (Duggan et al., 2017; Membership of the Working Party et al., 2021).

3. Timing of Transition: Subcutaneous basal insulin should be administered 2-4 hours before discontinuing intravenous insulin to ensure adequate plasma insulin levels (Umpierrez et al., 2012).

4. Patient-Specific Factors: Insulin requirements may decrease postoperatively due to improved insulin sensitivity following resolution of surgical stress, necessitating dose reduction to prevent hypoglycemia (Duggan et al., 2017).

Resuming Home Regimen

Resumption of the patient's home diabetes regimen depends on:

1. Oral Intake: Patients should resume prandial insulin or oral agents only when consistently consuming at least 50% of offered meals (Duggan et al., 2017).

2. Renal Function: Metformin should be restarted only when renal function returns to baseline and the patient is eating reliably (Membership of the Working Party et al., 2021).

3. SGLT-2 Inhibitors: These should be restarted only when the patient is eating normally, hemodynamically stable, and at low risk for hypovolemia or recurrent surgical intervention (Thiruvenkatarajan et al., 2019).

4. Insulin Pumps: These can be restarted when the patient is stable, alert, and able to manage the device independently (Nassar et al., 2022).

Special Considerations

Enteral and Parenteral Nutrition

For patients requiring enteral nutrition, regular monitoring of blood glucose is essential. Continuous enteral feeding typically requires basal insulin with regular correction doses, while bolus feeding may be managed with a combination of basal and prandial insulin (Elia et al., 2005; McMahon et al., 2012).

Parenteral nutrition presents unique challenges due to high glucose content. Current evidence supports adding regular insulin directly to the parenteral nutrition solution while maintaining a separate subcutaneous basal insulin regimen (McMahon et al., 2012).

Steroid-Induced Hyperglycemia

Glucocorticoids significantly impact glycemic control, primarily causing postprandial hyperglycemia. For patients receiving high-dose steroids, anticipatory insulin adjustment is necessary:

1. Short-Term Steroids: Additional prandial insulin coverage with dose increases of 20-40% is typically required (Duggan et al., 2017).

2. Long-Term Steroids: Addition of NPH insulin timed to coincide with peak steroid effect can be effective (Radhakutty & Burt, 2018).

3. Tapering Regimens: Insulin doses should be proactively reduced as steroid doses decrease to prevent hypoglycemia (Radhakutty & Burt, 2018).

Outpatient Surgery

For ambulatory procedures, emphasis is placed on maintaining the patient's usual regimen with minimal disruption:

1. Type 1 Diabetes: Basal insulin should be continued at 80% of the usual dose, with frequent monitoring during and after the procedure (Nassar et al., 2022).

2. Type 2 Diabetes: Oral agents may be held on the day of surgery and resumed when eating normally. For insulin-treated patients, a 20-25% reduction in basal insulin is recommended (Membership of the Working Party et al., 2021).

3. Discharge Criteria: Stable blood glucose (<14 mmol/L or <250 mg/dL) and ability to resume self-management are essential before discharge (ADA, 2024; Membership of the Working Party et al., 2021).

Emerging Technologies and Future Directions

Continuous Glucose Monitoring

The perioperative use of CGM is expanding, with evidence suggesting improved glycemic control and reduced hypoglycemia in surgical patients (Galindo et al., 2020). Factory-calibrated CGM systems have demonstrated acceptable accuracy in hospitalized patients, including those undergoing surgery (Umpierrez & Klonoff, 2018). Integration of CGM with electronic health records and clinical decision support systems represents an area of active investigation (Spanakis et al., 2016).

Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

Closed-loop insulin delivery systems have demonstrated safety and efficacy in small perioperative studies, particularly for ambulatory procedures (Umpierrez & Klonoff, 2018). These systems may provide superior glycemic control compared to conventional approaches, though larger trials are needed before widespread implementation (Bally et al., 2018).

Pharmacological Advances

Novel agents for inpatient glucose management are under investigation:

1. Long-Acting GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: These show promise for inpatient use with potential benefits including reduced insulin requirements and decreased glycemic variability (Pasquel et al., 2020).

2. Ultra-Long-Acting Insulins: Degludec and other ultra-long-acting insulins may provide more stable glycemic control with reduced hypoglycemia risk, though perioperative data remains limited (Umpierrez et al., 2018).

3. Biosimilar Insulins: These offer cost-effective alternatives for perioperative management, with comparable efficacy and safety profiles to reference products (Duggan et al., 2017).

Implementation Strategies

Standardized Protocols

Institutional protocols for perioperative diabetes management have been shown to improve outcomes:

1. Preoperative Checklists: Standardized protocols ensure appropriate medication adjustments and preoperative evaluation (Hommel et al., 2017).

2. Electronic Order Sets: These facilitate guideline-concordant care and reduce practice variation (Spanakis et al., 2016).

3. Multimodal Interventions: Combining provider education, clinical decision support, and audit-feedback mechanisms has demonstrated superior outcomes compared to single interventions (Hommel et al., 2017).

Multidisciplinary Approach

Optimal perioperative diabetes management requires collaboration among surgeons, anesthesiologists, endocrinologists, nurses, and diabetes educators:

1. Preoperative Diabetes Clinics: Dedicated clinics for preoperative optimization improve glycemic control and reduce complications (Membership of the Working Party et al., 2021).

2. Inpatient Diabetes Teams: Specialized teams reduce length of stay, readmission rates, and perioperative complications (Umpierrez et al., 2012).

3. Standardized Handoff Protocols: These ensure continuity of diabetes management across transitions of care (Spanakis et al., 2016).

Conclusion

Perioperative management of diabetes mellitus requires a systematic, evidence-based approach tailored to individual patient needs. Careful preoperative assessment, appropriate medication adjustments, and individualized glycemic targets are essential components of effective management. The integration of emerging technologies, including CGM and automated insulin delivery systems, offers promising strategies to improve perioperative outcomes.

Future research should focus on optimizing glycemic targets for specific surgical populations, evaluating the impact of newer antihyperglycemic agents in the perioperative setting, and assessing the cost-effectiveness of technology-based interventions. Multidisciplinary collaboration and standardized protocols remain cornerstones of effective perioperative diabetes management.

References

Ackland, G. L., Abbott, T. E. F., Cain, D., Edwards, M. R., Sultan, P., Karmali, S. N., Fowler, A. J., Whittle, J. R., MacDonald, N. J., Reyes, A., Paredes, L. G., Stephens, R. C. M., Gutierrez Del Arroyo, A., Woldman, S., Brandner, B., Bandner, B., Sessler, D. I., & Pearse, R. M. (2019). Preoperative systemic inflammation and perioperative myocardial injury: Prospective observational multicentre cohort study of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 122(2), 180–187.

American Diabetes Association. (2024). Diabetes care in the hospital: Standards of medical care in diabetes-2024. Diabetes Care, 47(Supplement 1), S273–S284.

Bally, L., Thabit, H., Hartnell, S., Andereggen, E., Ruan, Y., Wilinska, M. E., Evans, M. L., Wertli, M. M., Coll, A. P., Stettler, C., & Hovorka, R. (2018). Closed-loop insulin delivery for glycemic control in noncritical care. New England Journal of Medicine, 379(6), 547–556.

Buchleitner, A. M., Martínez-Alonso, M., Hernández, M., Solà, I., & Mauricio, D. (2012). Perioperative glycaemic control for diabetic patients undergoing surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (9), CD007315.

Duggan, E. W., Carlson, K., & Umpierrez, G. E. (2017). Perioperative hyperglycemia management: An update. Anesthesiology, 126(3), 547–560.

Elia, M., Ceriello, A., Laube, H., Sinclair, A. J., Engfer, M., & Stratton, R. J. (2005). Enteral nutritional support and use of diabetes-specific formulas for patients with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care, 28(9), 2267–2279.

Frisch, A., Chandra, P., Smiley, D., Peng, L., Rizzo, M., Gatcliffe, C., Hudson, M., Mendoza, J., Johnson, R., Lin, E., & Umpierrez, G. E. (2010). Prevalence and clinical outcome of hyperglycemia in the perioperative period in noncardiac surgery. Diabetes Care, 33(8), 1783–1788.

Galindo, R. J., Migdal, A. L., Davis, G. M., Urrutia, M. A., Albury, B., Zambrano, C., Vellanki, P., Pasquel, F. J., Fayfman, M., & Umpierrez, G. E. (2020). Comparison of the FreeStyle Libre Pro Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) System and Point-of-Care Capillary Glucose Testing in Hospitalized Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Basal-Bolus Insulin Regimen. Diabetes Care, 43(11), 2730–2735.

Goel, A., Rosenberg, J., & Perkins, B. A. (2023). Perioperative management of diabetes technology: A narrative review. Canadian Journal of Diabetes.

Hommel, I., van Gurp, P. J., Tack, C. J., Wollersheim, H., & Hulscher, M. E. J. L. (2017). Perioperative diabetes care: Development and validation of quality indicators throughout the entire hospital care pathway. BMJ Quality & Safety, 26(4), 340–351.

International Diabetes Federation. (2021). IDF Diabetes Atlas, 10th edition.

Jones, C., Badger, S. A., & Hannon, R. (2011). The role of carbohydrate drinks in pre-operative nutrition for elective colorectal surgery. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 93(7), 504–507.

Lanspa, M. J., Dickerson, J., Morris, A. H., Orme, J. F., Holmen, J., & Hirshberg, E. L. (2015). Coefficient of glucose variation is independently associated with mortality in critically ill patients receiving intravenous insulin. Critical Care, 19(1), 86.

Ljungqvist, O., Scott, M., & Fearon, K. C. (2018). Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: A Review. JAMA Surgery, 152(3), 292–298.

McMahon, M. M., Nystrom, E., Braunschweig, C., Miles, J., Compher, C., & American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.) Board of Directors. (2012). A.S.P.E.N. clinical guidelines: Nutrition support of adult patients with hyperglycemia. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 37(1), 23–36.

Membership of the Working Party, Barker, P., Creasey, P. E., Dhatariya, K., Levy, N., Lipp, A., Nathanson, M. H., Penfold, N., Watson, B., & Woodcock, T. (2021). Guidelines for the management of adult patients with diabetes undergoing surgery and elective procedures: Improving standards. Diabetic Medicine, 38(1), e14509.

Nassar, A. A., Partridge, H., & Dhatariya, K. (2022). Management of diabetes in the perioperative setting. British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 83(4), 1–10.

NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators, Finfer, S., Chittock, D. R., Su, S. Y.-S., Blair, D., Foster, D., Dhingra, V., Bellomo, R., Cook, D., Dodek, P., Henderson, W. R., Hébert, P. C., Heritier, S., Heyland, D. K., McArthur, C., McDonald, E., Mitchell, I., Myburgh, J. A., Norton, R., … Ronco, J. J. (2009). Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. New England Journal of Medicine, 360(13), 1283–1297.

Partridge, H., Nassar, A., & Dhatariya, K. (2021). Perioperative management of diabetes and hyperglycaemia. Current Diabetes Reports, 21(9), 36.

Pasquel, F. J., Fayfman, M., & Umpierrez, G. E. (2020). Acute dysglycemia and hospital outcomes in non-critically ill patients. Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications, 34(6), 107585.

Radhakutty, A., & Burt, M. G. (2018). Management of endocrine disease: Critical review of the evidence underlying management of glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycaemia. European Journal of Endocrinology, 179(4), R207–R218.

Shetty, S., Inzucchi, S. E., Goldberg, P. A., Cooper, D., Siegel, M. D., & Honiden, S. (2012). Adapting to the new consensus guidelines for managing hyperglycemia during critical illness: The updated Yale insulin infusion protocol. Endocrine Practice, 18(3), 363–370.

Spanakis, E. K., Shah, N., Malhotra, K., Kemmerer, T., Yeh, H.-C., & Golden, S. H. (2016). Insulin requirements in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes and steroid-induced hyperglycemia. Hospital Practice, 42(2), 23–30.

Thiruvenkatarajan, V., Meyer, E. J., Nanjappa, N., Van Wijk, R. M., & Jesudason, D. (2019). Perioperative diabetic ketoacidosis associated with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors: A systematic review. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 123(1), 27–36.

Umpierrez, G. E., Hellman, R., Korytkowski, M. T., Kosiborod, M., Maynard, G. A., Montori, V. M., Seley, J. J., & Van den Berghe, G. (2012). Management of hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients in non-critical care setting: An endocrine society clinical practice guideline. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 97(1), 16–38.

Umpierrez, G. E., & Klonoff, D. C. (2018). Diabetes technology update: Use of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring in the hospital. Diabetes Care, 41(8), 1579–1589.

Umpierrez, G. E., Reyes, D., Smiley, D., Hermayer, K., Khan, A., Olson, D. E., Pasquel, F., Jacobs, S., Newton, C., & Peng, L. (2018). Hospital discharge algorithm based on admission HbA1c for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 37(1), 2934–2939.