Michael J Lanspa1, Eliotte L Hirshberg2, Gregory D Phillips3, John Holmen4, Gregory Stoddard5, James Orme6. 1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT. Electronic address: michael.lanspa@imail.org. 2. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Division of Pediatric Critical Care, Salt Lake City, UT; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT. 3. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT. 4. Homer Warner Center, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT. 6. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimal glucose management in the ICU remains unclear. In 2009, many clinicians at Intermountain Healthcare selected a moderate glucose control (90-140 mg/dL) instead of tight glucose control (80-110 mg/dL). We hypothesized that moderate glucose control would affect patients with and without preexisting diabetes differently. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all patients treated with eProtocol-insulin from November 2006 to March 2011, stratifying for diabetes. We performed multivariate logistic regression for 30-day mortality with covariates of age, modified APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) II score, Charlson Comorbidity score, and target glucose. RESULTS: We studied 3,529 patients in 12 different ICUs in eight different hospitals. Patients with diabetes had higher mean glucose (132 mg/dL vs 124 mg/dL) and greater glycemic variability (SD = 41 mg/dL vs 29 mg/dL) than did patients without diabetes (P < .01 for both comparisons). Tight glucose control was associated with increased frequency of moderate and severe hypoglycemia (30.3% and 3.6%) compared with moderate glucose control (14.3% and 2.0%, P < .01 for both). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the moderate glucose target was independently associated with increased risk of mortality in patients without diabetes (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01-1.84; P = .05) but decreased risk of mortality in patients with diabetes (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.93; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate glucose control (90-140 mg/dL) may confer greater mortality in critically ill patients without diabetes compared with tight glucose control (80-110 mg/dL). A single glucose target does not appear optimal for all critically ill patients. These data have important implications for the design of future interventional trials as well as for the glycemic management of critically ill patients.
BACKGROUND: Optimal glucose management in the ICU remains unclear. In 2009, many clinicians at Intermountain Healthcare selected a moderate glucose control (90-140 mg/dL) instead of tight glucose control (80-110 mg/dL). We hypothesized that moderate glucose control would affect patients with and without preexisting diabetes differently. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all patients treated with eProtocol-insulin from November 2006 to March 2011, stratifying for diabetes. We performed multivariate logistic regression for 30-day mortality with covariates of age, modified APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) II score, Charlson Comorbidity score, and target glucose. RESULTS: We studied 3,529 patients in 12 different ICUs in eight different hospitals. Patients with diabetes had higher mean glucose (132 mg/dL vs 124 mg/dL) and greater glycemic variability (SD = 41 mg/dL vs 29 mg/dL) than did patients without diabetes (P < .01 for both comparisons). Tight glucose control was associated with increased frequency of moderate and severe hypoglycemia (30.3% and 3.6%) compared with moderate glucose control (14.3% and 2.0%, P < .01 for both). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the moderate glucose target was independently associated with increased risk of mortality in patients without diabetes (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01-1.84; P = .05) but decreased risk of mortality in patients with diabetes (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.93; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate glucose control (90-140 mg/dL) may confer greater mortality in critically illpatients without diabetes compared with tight glucose control (80-110 mg/dL). A single glucose target does not appear optimal for all critically illpatients. These data have important implications for the design of future interventional trials as well as for the glycemic management of critically illpatients.
Authors: James S Krinsley; Geert Meyfroidt; Greet van den Berghe; Mori Egi; Rinaldo Bellomo Journal: Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 4.294
Authors: Alan H Morris; James Orme; Jonathon D Truwit; Jay Steingrub; Colin Grissom; Kang H Lee; Guoliang L Li; B Taylor Thompson; Roy Brower; Mark Tidswell; Gordon R Bernard; Dean Sorenson; Katherine Sward; Hui Zheng; David Schoenfeld; Homer Warner Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 7.598
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: Moritoki Egi; James S Krinsley; Paula Maurer; Devendra N Amin; Tomoyuki Kanazawa; Shruti Ghandi; Kiyoshi Morita; Michael Bailey; Rinaldo Bellomo Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jean-Charles Preiser; J Geoffrey Chase; Roman Hovorka; Jeffrey I Joseph; James S Krinsley; Christophe De Block; Thomas Desaive; Luc Foubert; Pierre Kalfon; Ulrike Pielmeier; Tom Van Herpe; Jan Wernerman Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2016-11-01
Authors: Stephen D Patek; E Andy Ortiz; Leon S Farhy; Jennifer Mason Lobo; James Isbell; Jennifer L Kirby; Anthony McCall Journal: Proc Am Control Conf Date: 2015-07-30
Authors: Alan H Morris; Brian Stagg; Michael Lanspa; James Orme; Terry P Clemmer; Lindell K Weaver; Frank Thomas; Colin K Grissom; Ellie Hirshberg; Thomas D East; Carrie Jane Wallace; Michael P Young; Dean F Sittig; Antonio Pesenti; Michela Bombino; Eduardo Beck; Katherine A Sward; Charlene Weir; Shobha S Phansalkar; Gordon R Bernard; B Taylor Thompson; Roy Brower; Jonathon D Truwit; Jay Steingrub; R Duncan Hite; Douglas F Willson; Jerry J Zimmerman; Vinay M Nadkarni; Adrienne Randolph; Martha A Q Curley; Christopher J L Newth; Jacques Lacroix; Michael S D Agus; Kang H Lee; Bennett P deBoisblanc; R Scott Evans; Dean K Sorenson; Anthony Wong; Michael V Boland; David W Grainger; Willard H Dere; Alan S Crandall; Julio C Facelli; Stanley M Huff; Peter J Haug; Ulrike Pielmeier; Stephen E Rees; Dan S Karbing; Steen Andreassen; Eddy Fan; Roberta M Goldring; Kenneth I Berger; Beno W Oppenheimer; E Wesley Ely; Ognjen Gajic; Brian Pickering; David A Schoenfeld; Irena Tocino; Russell S Gonnering; Peter J Pronovost; Lucy A Savitz; Didier Dreyfuss; Arthur S Slutsky; James D Crapo; Derek Angus; Michael R Pinsky; Brent James; Donald Berwick Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 4.497