Iain M J Mackenzie1, Tony Whitehouse, Peter G Nightingale. 1. Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK. iain.mackenzie@uhb.nhs.uk
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Trials of tight glucose control have compared measures of central tendency, such as average blood glucose, and yielded conflicting results. Other metrics, such as standard deviation, reflect different properties of glucose control and are also associated with changes in outcome. It is possible, therefore, that the conflicting results from interventional studies arise from effects on glycaemic control that have not been reported. METHODS: Using glucose measurements from patients admitted to four adult intensive care units in one UK hospital, we sought to identify metrics of glycaemic control, examine the relationship between them and identify the metrics that are both independently and most strongly associated with outcome. RESULTS: We examined nine previously described metrics and identified a further four. Cluster analysis classified these metrics into two families, namely, those reflecting measures of central tendency and those reflecting measures of dispersion. A measure of minimum glucose was also identified but related to neither family. Plots of the quintiles of these metrics against hospital mortality revealed population-specific relationships. Areas under receiver-operating characteristic curves could not identify an optimum metric of central tendency or dispersion. Using odds ratios, we were able to show that the effect of these metrics is independent of one another. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that glycaemic control is associated with outcome on the basis of three independent metrics, reflecting measures of central tendency, measures of dispersion and a measure of minimum glucose.
INTRODUCTION: Trials of tight glucose control have compared measures of central tendency, such as average blood glucose, and yielded conflicting results. Other metrics, such as standard deviation, reflect different properties of glucose control and are also associated with changes in outcome. It is possible, therefore, that the conflicting results from interventional studies arise from effects on glycaemic control that have not been reported. METHODS: Using glucose measurements from patients admitted to four adult intensive care units in one UK hospital, we sought to identify metrics of glycaemic control, examine the relationship between them and identify the metrics that are both independently and most strongly associated with outcome. RESULTS: We examined nine previously described metrics and identified a further four. Cluster analysis classified these metrics into two families, namely, those reflecting measures of central tendency and those reflecting measures of dispersion. A measure of minimum glucose was also identified but related to neither family. Plots of the quintiles of these metrics against hospital mortality revealed population-specific relationships. Areas under receiver-operating characteristic curves could not identify an optimum metric of central tendency or dispersion. Using odds ratios, we were able to show that the effect of these metrics is independent of one another. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that glycaemic control is associated with outcome on the basis of three independent metrics, reflecting measures of central tendency, measures of dispersion and a measure of minimum glucose.
Authors: Jack J M Ligtenberg; Sofie Meijering; Ymkje Stienstra; Iwan C C van der Horst; Mathijs Vogelzang; Maarten W N Nijsten; Jaap E Tulleken; Jan G Zijlstra Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2006-02-14 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Christoph Pachler; Johannes Plank; Heinz Weinhandl; Ludovic J Chassin; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Roman Kulnik; Peter Kaufmann; Karl-Heinz Smolle; Ernst Pilger; Thomas R Pieber; Martin Ellmerer; Roman Hovorka Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-02-23 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Yaseen M Arabi; Ousama C Dabbagh; Hani M Tamim; Abdullah A Al-Shimemeri; Ziad A Memish; Samir H Haddad; Sofia J Syed; Hema R Giridhar; Asgar H Rishu; Mouhamad O Al-Daker; Salim H Kahoul; Riette J Britts; Maram H Sakkijha Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Edmond A Ryan; Tami Shandro; Kristy Green; Breay W Paty; Peter A Senior; David Bigam; A M James Shapiro; Marie-Christine Vantyghem Journal: Diabetes Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Jeroen Hermanides; Titia M Vriesendorp; Robert J Bosman; Durk F Zandstra; Joost B Hoekstra; J Hans Devries Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Sean M Bagshaw; Rinaldo Bellomo; Michael J Jacka; Moritoki Egi; Graeme K Hart; Carol George Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-06-17 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Reiner M Waeschle; Onnen Moerer; Reinhard Hilgers; Peter Herrmann; Peter Neumann; Michael Quintel Journal: Crit Care Date: 2008-10-21 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Barry C Crane; Nicholas P Barwell; Palepu Gopal; Mannam Gopichand; Timothy Higgs; Tony D James; Christopher M Jones; Alasdair Mackenzie; Krishna Prasad Mulavisala; William Paterson Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2015-06-01