Statin Intake Is Associated With Decreased Insulin Sensitivity During Cardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Surgical trauma impairs intraoperative insulin sensitivity and is associated with postoperative adverse events. Recently, preprocedural statin therapy is recommended for patients with coronary artery disease. However, statin therapy is reported to increase insulin resistance and the risk of new-onset diabetes. Thus, we investigated the association between preoperative statin therapy and intraoperative insulin sensitivity in nondiabetic, dyslipidemic patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this prospective, nonrandomized trial, patients taking lipophilic statins were assigned to the statin group and hypercholesterolemic patients not receiving any statins were allocated to the control group. Insulin sensitivity was assessed by the hyperinsulinemic-normoglycemic clamp technique during surgery. The mean, SD of blood glucose, and the coefficient of variation (CV) after surgery were calculated for each patient. The association between statin use and intraoperative insulin sensitivity was tested by multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: We studied 120 patients. In both groups, insulin sensitivity gradually decreased during surgery with values being on average ∼20% lower in the statin than in the control group. In the statin group, the mean blood glucose in the intensive care unit was higher than in the control group (153 ± 20 vs. 140 ± 20 mg/dL; P < 0.001). The oscillation of blood glucose was larger in the statin group (SD, P < 0.001; CV, P = 0.001). Multiple regression analysis showed that statin use was independently associated with intraoperative insulin sensitivity (β = -0.16; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative use of lipophilic statins is associated with increased insulin resistance during cardiac surgery in nondiabetic, dyslipidemic patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".