BACKGROUND: Intensive glycemic control has been associated with reduced morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Web-based, patient-specific insulin nomograms may facilitate improved glucose control. OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 algorithms for individualizing insulin infusion therapy (a web-based system [Glucommander method] and a standard paper-based nomogram) in a cardiovascular surgery intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: In this prospective, before-after cohort study, measures of glycemic control for 50 patients receiving insulin according to the Glucommander system were compared with a control group (n = 50) who received insulin according to the standard paper-based nomogram used in the cardiovascular surgery ICU. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the 2 groups with respect to time to target blood glucose (5.1-8.0 mmol/L), percentage of time within the target range, or mean amplitude of glucose excursion. Patients in the intervention group spent less time above the target range (p = 0.007) and more time below the target range (p < 0.001), and the mean glucose was lower in this group compared with the control group (7.9 versus 8.6 mmol/L, p = 0.002). The percentage of blood glucose measurements below 4 mmol/L was higher in the intervention group than in the control group (3.7% versus 1.4%, p = 0.003). Satisfaction surveys revealed that the program was well accepted by the nursing staff in the cardiovascular surgery ICU. CONCLUSIONS: A web-based insulin nomogram was an easy-to-use instrument for achieving tighter glucose control for patients in the cardiovascular surgery ICU. Use of the Glucommander system led to lower mean blood glucose but an increase in episodes of hypoglycemia.
BACKGROUND: Intensive glycemic control has been associated with reduced morbidity and mortality in critically illpatients. Web-based, patient-specific insulin nomograms may facilitate improved glucose control. OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 algorithms for individualizing insulin infusion therapy (a web-based system [Glucommander method] and a standard paper-based nomogram) in a cardiovascular surgery intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: In this prospective, before-after cohort study, measures of glycemic control for 50 patients receiving insulin according to the Glucommander system were compared with a control group (n = 50) who received insulin according to the standard paper-based nomogram used in the cardiovascular surgery ICU. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the 2 groups with respect to time to target blood glucose (5.1-8.0 mmol/L), percentage of time within the target range, or mean amplitude of glucose excursion. Patients in the intervention group spent less time above the target range (p = 0.007) and more time below the target range (p < 0.001), and the mean glucose was lower in this group compared with the control group (7.9 versus 8.6 mmol/L, p = 0.002). The percentage of blood glucose measurements below 4 mmol/L was higher in the intervention group than in the control group (3.7% versus 1.4%, p = 0.003). Satisfaction surveys revealed that the program was well accepted by the nursing staff in the cardiovascular surgery ICU. CONCLUSIONS: A web-based insulin nomogram was an easy-to-use instrument for achieving tighter glucose control for patients in the cardiovascular surgery ICU. Use of the Glucommander system led to lower mean blood glucose but an increase in episodes of hypoglycemia.
Entities:
Keywords:
critically ill patients; tight glycemic control
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: Simon Finfer; Dean R Chittock; Steve Yu-Shuo Su; Deborah Blair; Denise Foster; Vinay Dhingra; Rinaldo Bellomo; Deborah Cook; Peter Dodek; William R Henderson; Paul C Hébert; Stephane Heritier; Daren K Heyland; Colin McArthur; Ellen McDonald; Imogen Mitchell; John A Myburgh; Robyn Norton; Julie Potter; Bruce G Robinson; Juan J Ronco Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Donald E G Griesdale; Russell J de Souza; Rob M van Dam; Daren K Heyland; Deborah J Cook; Atul Malhotra; Rupinder Dhaliwal; William R Henderson; Dean R Chittock; Simon Finfer; Daniel Talmor Journal: CMAJ Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 8.262
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: Etie S Moghissi; Mary T Korytkowski; Monica DiNardo; Daniel Einhorn; Richard Hellman; Irl B Hirsch; Silvio E Inzucchi; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi; M Sue Kirkman; Guillermo E Umpierrez Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-05-08 Impact factor: 19.112