OBJECTIVE:Tight glycaemic control (TGC) in critically ill patients improves clinical outcome, but is difficult to establish The primary objective of the present study was to compare glucose control in medical ICU patients applying acomputer-based enhanced model predictive control algorithm (eMPC) extended to include time-variant sampling against an implemented glucose management protocol. DESIGN: Open randomised controlled trial. SETTING:Nine-bed medical intensive care unit (ICU) in a tertiary teaching hospital. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Fifty mechanically ventilated medical ICU patients. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were included for a study period of up to 72 h. Patients were randomised to the control group (n = 25), treated by an implemented insulin algorithm, or to the eMPC group (n = 25), using the laptop-based algorithm. Target range for blood glucose (BG) was 4.4-6.1 mM. Efficacy was assessed by mean BG, hyperglycaemic index (HGI) and BG sampling interval. Safety was assessed by the number of hypoglycaemic-episodes < 2.2 mM. Each participating nurse filled-in a questionnaire regarding the usability of the algorithm. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:BG and HGI were significantly lower in the eMPC group [BG 5.9 mM (5.5-6.3), median (IQR); HGI 0.4 mM (0.2-0.9)] than in control patients [BG 7.4 mM (6.9-8.6), p < 0.001; HGI 1.6 mM (1.1-2.4), p < 0.001]. One hypoglycaemic episode was detected in the eMPC group; no such episodes in the control group. Sampling interval was significantly shorter in the eMPC group [eMPC117[Symbol: see text]min (+/- 34), mean (+/- SD), vs 174 min (+/- 27); p < 0.001]. Thirty-four nurses filled-in the questionnaire. Thirty answered the question of whether the algorithm could be applied in daily routine in the affirmative. CONCLUSIONS: The eMPC algorithm was effective in maintaining tight glycaemic control in severely ill medical ICU patients.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Tight glycaemic control (TGC) in critically illpatients improves clinical outcome, but is difficult to establish The primary objective of the present study was to compare glucose control in medical ICU patients applying a computer-based enhanced model predictive control algorithm (eMPC) extended to include time-variant sampling against an implemented glucose management protocol. DESIGN: Open randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Nine-bed medical intensive care unit (ICU) in a tertiary teaching hospital. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Fifty mechanically ventilated medical ICU patients. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were included for a study period of up to 72 h. Patients were randomised to the control group (n = 25), treated by an implemented insulin algorithm, or to the eMPC group (n = 25), using the laptop-based algorithm. Target range for blood glucose (BG) was 4.4-6.1 mM. Efficacy was assessed by mean BG, hyperglycaemic index (HGI) and BG sampling interval. Safety was assessed by the number of hypoglycaemic-episodes < 2.2 mM. Each participating nurse filled-in a questionnaire regarding the usability of the algorithm. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: BG and HGI were significantly lower in the eMPC group [BG 5.9 mM (5.5-6.3), median (IQR); HGI 0.4 mM (0.2-0.9)] than in control patients [BG 7.4 mM (6.9-8.6), p < 0.001; HGI 1.6 mM (1.1-2.4), p < 0.001]. One hypoglycaemic episode was detected in the eMPC group; no such episodes in the control group. Sampling interval was significantly shorter in the eMPC group [eMPC 117[Symbol: see text]min (+/- 34), mean (+/- SD), vs 174 min (+/- 27); p < 0.001]. Thirty-four nurses filled-in the questionnaire. Thirty answered the question of whether the algorithm could be applied in daily routine in the affirmative. CONCLUSIONS: The eMPC algorithm was effective in maintaining tight glycaemic control in severely ill medical ICU patients.
Authors: Titia M Vriesendorp; Susanne van Santen; J Hans DeVries; Evert de Jonge; Frits R Rosendaal; Marcus J Schultz; Joost B L Hoekstra Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Johannes Plank; Jan Blaha; Jeremy Cordingley; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Ludovic J Chassin; Cliff Morgan; Stephen Squire; Martin Haluzik; Jaromir Kremen; Stepan Svacina; Wolfgang Toller; Andreas Plasnik; Martin Ellmerer; Roman Hovorka; Thomas R Pieber Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Anthony P Furnary; Guangqiang Gao; Gary L Grunkemeier; YingXing Wu; Kathryn J Zerr; Stephen O Bookin; H Storm Floten; Albert Starr Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Joseph McMullin; Jan Brozek; Roman Jaeschke; Cindy Hamielec; Vinay Dhingra; Graeme Rocker; Andreas Freitag; James Gibson; Deborah Cook Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-03-30 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Salmaan Kanji; Avinder Singh; Michael Tierney; Hilary Meggison; Lauralyn McIntyre; Paul C Hebert Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-03-20 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Georgia M Davis; Rodolfo J Galindo; Alexandra L Migdal; Guillermo E Umpierrez Journal: Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 4.741
Authors: Thomas R Campion; Lemuel R Waitman; Nancy M Lorenzi; Addison K May; Cynthia S Gadd Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2011-10-21 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Roman Kulnik; Johannes Plank; Christoph Pachler; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Andrea Groselj-Strele; Doris Röthlein; Matthias Wufka; Norman Kachel; Karl Heinz Smolle; Sabine Perl; Thomas Rudolf Pieber; Roman Hovorka; Martin Ellmerer Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2008-11
Authors: Jan Blaha; Petr Kopecky; Michal Matias; Roman Hovorka; Jan Kunstyr; Tomas Kotulak; Michal Lips; David Rubes; Martin Stritesky; Jaroslav Lindner; Michal Semrad; Martin Haluzik Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-02-05 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Rattan Juneja; Corbin P Roudebush; Stanley A Nasraway; Adam A Golas; Judith Jacobi; Joni Carroll; Deborah Nelson; Victor J Abad; Samuel J Flanders Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-10-12 Impact factor: 9.097