PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of continuous insulin infusion (CII) via a computer-guided and a standard paper form protocol in a medical intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Multicenter randomized trial of 153 ICU patients randomized to CII using the Glucommander (n = 77) or a standard paper protocol (n = 76). Both protocols used glulisine insulin and targeted blood glucose (BG) between 80 mg/dL and 120 mg/dL. RESULTS: The Glucommander resulted in a lower mean BG value (103 ± 8.8 mg/dL vs. 117 ± 16.5 mg/dL, P < 0.001) and in a shorter time to reach BG target (4.8 ± 2.8 vs.7.8 hours ± 9.1 hours, P < 0.01), and once at target resulted in a higher percentage of BG readings within target (71.0 ± 17.0% vs. 51.3 ± 19.7%, P < 0.001) than the standard protocol. Mean insulin infusion rate in the Glucommander was similar to the standard protocol (P = 0.12). The percentages of patients with ≥1 episode of BG <40 mg/dL and <60 mg/dL were 3.9% and 42.9% in the Glucommander and 5.6% and 31.9% in the standard, respectively [P = not significant (NS)]. Repeated measures analyses show that the probabilities of BG reading <40 mg/dL or <60 mg/dL were not significantly different between groups (P = 0.969, P = 0.084) after accounting for within-patient correlations with or without adjusting for time effect. There were no differences between groups in the length of hospital stay (P = 0.704), ICU stay (P = 0.145), or inhospital mortality (P = 0.561). CONCLUSION: Both treatment algorithms resulted in significant improvement in glycemic control in critically ill patients in the medical ICU. The computer-based algorithm resulted in tighter glycemic control without an increased risk of hypoglycemic events compared to the standard paper protocol.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of continuous insulin infusion (CII) via a computer-guided and a standard paper form protocol in a medical intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Multicenter randomized trial of 153 ICU patients randomized to CII using the Glucommander (n = 77) or a standard paper protocol (n = 76). Both protocols used glulisineinsulin and targeted blood glucose (BG) between 80 mg/dL and 120 mg/dL. RESULTS: The Glucommander resulted in a lower mean BG value (103 ± 8.8 mg/dL vs. 117 ± 16.5 mg/dL, P < 0.001) and in a shorter time to reach BG target (4.8 ± 2.8 vs.7.8 hours ± 9.1 hours, P < 0.01), and once at target resulted in a higher percentage of BG readings within target (71.0 ± 17.0% vs. 51.3 ± 19.7%, P < 0.001) than the standard protocol. Mean insulin infusion rate in the Glucommander was similar to the standard protocol (P = 0.12). The percentages of patients with ≥1 episode of BG <40 mg/dL and <60 mg/dL were 3.9% and 42.9% in the Glucommander and 5.6% and 31.9% in the standard, respectively [P = not significant (NS)]. Repeated measures analyses show that the probabilities of BG reading <40 mg/dL or <60 mg/dL were not significantly different between groups (P = 0.969, P = 0.084) after accounting for within-patient correlations with or without adjusting for time effect. There were no differences between groups in the length of hospital stay (P = 0.704), ICU stay (P = 0.145), or inhospital mortality (P = 0.561). CONCLUSION: Both treatment algorithms resulted in significant improvement in glycemic control in critically illpatients in the medical ICU. The computer-based algorithm resulted in tighter glycemic control without an increased risk of hypoglycemic events compared to the standard paper protocol.
Authors: G van den Berghe; P Wouters; F Weekers; C Verwaest; F Bruyninckx; M Schetz; D Vlasselaers; P Ferdinande; P Lauwers; R Bouillon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Abbas E Kitabchi; Guillermo E Umpierrez; Mary Beth Murphy; Eugene J Barrett; Robert A Kreisberg; John I Malone; Barry M Wall Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Stephen Clement; Susan S Braithwaite; Michelle F Magee; Andrew Ahmann; Elizabeth P Smith; Rebecca G Schafer; Irl B Hirsch; Irl B Hirsh Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Greet Van den Berghe; Alexander Wilmer; Greet Hermans; Wouter Meersseman; Pieter J Wouters; Ilse Milants; Eric Van Wijngaerden; Herman Bobbaers; Roger Bouillon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-02-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Guillermo E Umpierrez; Scott D Isaacs; Niloofar Bazargan; Xiangdong You; Leonard M Thaler; Abbas E Kitabchi Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Lawrence J Markovitz; Robert J Wiechmann; Natalie Harris; Vicky Hayden; Joseph Cooper; Gilbert Johnson; Randy Harelstad; Lu Calkins; Susan S Braithwaite Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.443
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: Philip A Goldberg; Mark D Siegel; Robert S Sherwin; Joshua I Halickman; Michelle Lee; Valerie A Bailey; Sandy L Lee; James D Dziura; Silvio E Inzucchi Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 19.112
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