OBJECTIVE: Tight glycemic control can potentially reduce morbidity and mortality in the intensive care unit but increases the risk of hypoglycemia. The most effective means to avoid hypoglycemia is to obtain frequent blood glucose samples, but this increases the burden to nursing staff. The objective of this study was to assess the ability of a real-time continuous glucose monitor to reduce hypoglycemia (blood glucose <60 mg/dL [3.3 mmol/L]) during standard care or tight glycemic control effected with a proportional integral derivative insulin titration algorithm. DESIGN:Real-time continuous glucose monitor profiles obtained from an ongoing prospective randomized trial of tight glycemic control were retrospectively analyzed to determine whether the continuous glucose measure had prevented instances of hypoglycemia. SETTING: Cardiac intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Children 3 yrs of age or younger undergoing cardiac surgery were studied. INTERVENTIONS: Intravenous insulin infusion and rescue glucose guided by the real-time continuous glucose monitor and the proportional integral derivative algorithm in the tight glycemic control arm (n = 155; target glucose 80-110 mg/dL [4.4-6.1 mmol/L]) and the real-time continuous glucose monitor in the standard care arm (n = 156). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: No reduction in hypoglycemia was observed with real-time continuous glucose monitor alarms set at 60 mg/dL (3.3 mmol/L) (zero of 19 occurrences of blood glucose <60 mg/dL [3.3 mmol/L] detected); 18 of 40 subsequent incidences of hypoglycemia were detected after the alarm threshold was increased to 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L). In the tight glycemic control arm, eight incidences were reduced in duration and an additional eight events were prevented with intravenous glucose. In the standard care arm, three of nine occurrences of hypoglycemia were detected with the duration reduced in all cases. On average, one to two false hypoglycemia alarms were observed in each patient. CONCLUSIONS: The real-time continuous glucose monitor in combination with proportional integral derivative control can reduce hypoglycemia during tight glycemic control. The real-time continuous glucose monitor can also reduce hypoglycemia during standard care. However, false alarms increase the overall nursing workload.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Tight glycemic control can potentially reduce morbidity and mortality in the intensive care unit but increases the risk of hypoglycemia. The most effective means to avoid hypoglycemia is to obtain frequent blood glucose samples, but this increases the burden to nursing staff. The objective of this study was to assess the ability of a real-time continuous glucose monitor to reduce hypoglycemia (blood glucose <60 mg/dL [3.3 mmol/L]) during standard care or tight glycemic control effected with a proportional integral derivative insulin titration algorithm. DESIGN: Real-time continuous glucose monitor profiles obtained from an ongoing prospective randomized trial of tight glycemic control were retrospectively analyzed to determine whether the continuous glucose measure had prevented instances of hypoglycemia. SETTING: Cardiac intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Children 3 yrs of age or younger undergoing cardiac surgery were studied. INTERVENTIONS: Intravenous insulin infusion and rescue glucose guided by the real-time continuous glucose monitor and the proportional integral derivative algorithm in the tight glycemic control arm (n = 155; target glucose 80-110 mg/dL [4.4-6.1 mmol/L]) and the real-time continuous glucose monitor in the standard care arm (n = 156). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: No reduction in hypoglycemia was observed with real-time continuous glucose monitor alarms set at 60 mg/dL (3.3 mmol/L) (zero of 19 occurrences of blood glucose <60 mg/dL [3.3 mmol/L] detected); 18 of 40 subsequent incidences of hypoglycemia were detected after the alarm threshold was increased to 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L). In the tight glycemic control arm, eight incidences were reduced in duration and an additional eight events were prevented with intravenous glucose. In the standard care arm, three of nine occurrences of hypoglycemia were detected with the duration reduced in all cases. On average, one to two false hypoglycemia alarms were observed in each patient. CONCLUSIONS: The real-time continuous glucose monitor in combination with proportional integral derivative control can reduce hypoglycemia during tight glycemic control. The real-time continuous glucose monitor can also reduce hypoglycemia during standard care. However, false alarms increase the overall nursing workload.
Authors: Dirk Vlasselaers; Ilse Milants; Lars Desmet; Pieter J Wouters; Ilse Vanhorebeek; Ingeborg van den Heuvel; Dieter Mesotten; Michael P Casaer; Geert Meyfroidt; Catherine Ingels; Jan Muller; Sophie Van Cromphaut; Miet Schetz; Greet Van den Berghe Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-01-26 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Frank M Brunkhorst; Christoph Engel; Frank Bloos; Andreas Meier-Hellmann; Max Ragaller; Norbert Weiler; Onnen Moerer; Matthias Gruendling; Michael Oppert; Stefan Grond; Derk Olthoff; Ulrich Jaschinski; Stefan John; Rolf Rossaint; Tobias Welte; Martin Schaefer; Peter Kern; Evelyn Kuhnt; Michael Kiehntopf; Christiane Hartog; Charles Natanson; Markus Loeffler; Konrad Reinhart Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-01-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stuart A Weinzimer; Garry M Steil; Karena L Swan; Jim Dziura; Natalie Kurtz; William V Tamborlane Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-02-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Michael G Gaies; Monica Langer; Jamin Alexander; Garry M Steil; Janice Ware; David Wypij; Peter C Laussen; Jane W Newburger; Caren S Goldberg; Frank A Pigula; Avinash C Shukla; Christopher P Duggan; Michael S D Agus Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Eliotte L Hirshberg; Michael J Lanspa; Emily L Wilson; Katherine A Sward; Al Jephson; Gitte Y Larsen; Alan H Morris Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Michael S D Agus; David Wypij; Eliotte L Hirshberg; Vijay Srinivasan; E Vincent Faustino; Peter M Luckett; Jamin L Alexander; Lisa A Asaro; Martha A Q Curley; Garry M Steil; Vinay M Nadkarni Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rodolfo J Galindo; Guillermo E Umpierrez; Robert J Rushakoff; Ananda Basu; Suzanne Lohnes; James H Nichols; Elias K Spanakis; Juan Espinoza; Nadine E Palermo; Dessa Garnett Awadjie; Leigh Bak; Bruce Buckingham; Curtiss B Cook; Guido Freckmann; Lutz Heinemann; Roman Hovorka; Nestoras Mathioudakis; Tonya Newman; David N O'Neal; Michaela Rickert; David B Sacks; Jane Jeffrie Seley; Amisha Wallia; Trisha Shang; Jennifer Y Zhang; Julia Han; David C Klonoff Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2020-09-28
Authors: Michael S D Agus; Garry M Steil; David Wypij; John M Costello; Peter C Laussen; Monica Langer; Jamin L Alexander; Lisa A Scoppettuolo; Frank A Pigula; John R Charpie; Richard G Ohye; Michael G Gaies Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-09-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jan Wernerman; Thomas Desaive; Simon Finfer; Luc Foubert; Anthony Furnary; Ulrike Holzinger; Roman Hovorka; Jeffrey Joseph; Mikhail Kosiborod; James Krinsley; Dieter Mesotten; Stanley Nasraway; Olav Rooyackers; Marcus J Schultz; Tom Van Herpe; Robert A Vigersky; Jean-Charles Preiser Journal: Crit Care Date: 2014-06-13 Impact factor: 9.097