Literature DB >> 23294794

Pilot study of the SPRINT glycemic control protocol in a Hungarian medical intensive care unit.

Balazs Benyo1, Attila Illyés, Noémi Szabó Némedi, Aaron J Le Compte, Attila Havas, Levente Kovacs, Liam Fisk, Geoffrey M Shaw, J Geoffrey Chase.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Stress-induced hyperglycemia increases morbidity and mortality. Tight control can reduce mortality but has proven difficult to achieve. The SPRINT (Specialized Relative Insulin and Nutrition Tables) protocol is the only protocol that reduced both mortality and hypoglycemia by modulating both insulin and nutrition, but it has not been tested in independent hospitals.
METHODS: SPRINT was used for 12 adult intensive care unit patients (949 h) at Kálmán Pándy Hospital (Gyula, Hungary) as a clinical practice assessment. Insulin recommendations (0-6 U/h) were administered via constant infusion rather than bolus delivery. Nutrition was administered per local standard protocol, weaning parenteral to enteral nutrition, but was modulated per SPRINT recommendations. Measurement was every 1 to 2 h, per protocol. Glycemic performance is assessed by percentage of blood glucose (BG) measurements in glycemic bands for the cohort and per patient. Safety from hypoglycemia is assessed by numbers of patients with BG < 2.2 (severe) and %BG < 3.0 and < 4.0 mmol/liter (moderate and light). Clinical effort is assessed by measurements per day. Results are median (interquartile range).
RESULTS: There were 742 measurements over 1088 h of control (16.4 measurements/day), which is similar to clinical SPRINT results (16.2/day). Per-patient hours of control were 65 (50-95) h. Initial per-patient BG was 10.5 (7.9-11.2) mmol/liter. All patients (100%) reached 6.1 mmol/liter. Cohort BG was 6.3 (5.5-7.5) mmol/liter, with 42.2%, 65.1% and 77.6% of BG in the 4.0-6.1, 4.0-7.0, and 4.0-8.0 mmol/liter bands. Per-patient, median percentage time in these bands was 40.2 (26.7-51.5)%, 62.5 (46.0-75.7)%, and 74.7 (61.6.8-87.8)%, respectively. No patients had BG < 2.2 mmol/liter, and the %BG < 4.0 mmol/liter was 1.9%. These results were achieved using 3.0 (3.0-5.0) U/h of insulin with 7.4 (4.4-10.2) g/h of dextrose administration (all sources) for the cohort. Per-patient median insulin administration was 3.0 (3.0-3.0) U/h and 7.1 (3.4-9.6) g/h dextrose. Higher carbohydrate nutrition formulas than were used in SPRINT are offset by slightly higher insulin administration in this study.
CONCLUSIONS: The glycemic performance shows that using the SPRINT protocol to guide insulin infusions and nutrition administration provided very good glycemic control in initial pilot testing, with no severe hypoglycemia. The overall design of the protocol was able to be generalized with good compliance and outcomes across geographically distinct clinical units, patients, and clinical practice.
© 2012 Diabetes Technology Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23294794      PMCID: PMC3570889          DOI: 10.1177/193229681200600628

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol        ISSN: 1932-2968


  51 in total

Review 1.  Tight glycemic control in critical care--the leading role of insulin sensitivity and patient variability: a review and model-based analysis.

Authors:  J Geoffrey Chase; Aaron J Le Compte; Fatanah Suhaimi; Geoffrey M Shaw; Adrienne Lynn; Jessica Lin; Christopher G Pretty; Normy Razak; Jacquelyn D Parente; Christopher E Hann; Jean-Charles Preiser; Thomas Desaive
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2010-12-09       Impact factor: 5.428

2.  Performance of a dose-defining insulin infusion protocol among trauma service intensive care unit admissions.

Authors:  Susan S Braithwaite; Renee Edkins; Kathy L Macgregor; Edward S Sredzienski; Michael Houston; Ben Zarzaur; Preston B Rich; Bernard Benedetto; Edmund J Rutherford
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 6.118

3.  Permissive underfeeding of the critically ill patient.

Authors:  Khursheed N Jeejeebhoy
Journal:  Nutr Clin Pract       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.080

4.  Targeted glycemic reduction in critical care using closed-loop control.

Authors:  J Geoffrey Chase; Geoffrey M Shaw; Jessica Lin; Carmen V Doran; Chris Hann; Thomas Lotz; Graeme C Wake; Bob Broughton
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 6.118

5.  Association between hyperglycemia and increased hospital mortality in a heterogeneous population of critically ill patients.

Authors:  James Stephen Krinsley
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 7.616

6.  Organ failure and tight glycemic control in the SPRINT study.

Authors:  J Geoffrey Chase; Christopher G Pretty; Leesa Pfeifer; Geoffrey M Shaw; Jean-Charles Preiser; Aaron J Le Compte; Jessica Lin; Darren Hewett; Katherine T Moorhead; Thomas Desaive
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2010-08-12       Impact factor: 9.097

7.  Hyperglycemia exacerbates muscle protein catabolism in burn-injured patients.

Authors:  Dennis C Gore; David L Chinkes; David W Hart; Steven E Wolf; David N Herndon; Arthur P Sanford
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 7.598

8.  A replicable method for blood glucose control in critically Ill patients.

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

9.  Pilot proof of concept clinical trials of Stochastic Targeted (STAR) glycemic control.

Authors:  Alicia Evans; Geoffrey M Shaw; Aaron Le Compte; Chia-Siong Tan; Logan Ward; James Steel; Christopher G Pretty; Leesa Pfeifer; Sophie Penning; Fatanah Suhaimi; Matthew Signal; Thomas Desaive; J Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 6.925

10.  The impact of early hypoglycemia and blood glucose variability on outcome in critical illness.

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

View more
  3 in total

1.  Evaluation of an open access software for calculating glucose variability parameters of a continuous glucose monitoring system applied at pediatric intensive care unit.

Authors:  Gábor Marics; Zsófia Lendvai; Csaba Lódi; Levente Koncz; Dávid Zakariás; György Schuster; Borbála Mikos; Csaba Hermann; Attila J Szabó; Péter Tóth-Heyn
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 2.819

Review 2.  The benefits of tight glycemic control in critical illness: Sweeter than assumed?

Authors:  Andrew John Gardner
Journal:  Indian J Crit Care Med       Date:  2014-12

3.  Space GlucoseControl system for blood glucose control in intensive care patients--a European multicentre observational study.

Authors:  Jan Blaha; Barbara Barteczko-Grajek; Pawel Berezowicz; Jiri Charvat; Jiri Chvojka; Teodoro Grau; Jonathan Holmgren; Ulrich Jaschinski; Petr Kopecky; Jan Manak; Mette Moehl; Jonathan Paddle; Marcello Pasculli; Johan Petersson; Sirak Petros; Danilo Radrizzani; Vinodkumar Singh; Joel Starkopf
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 2.217

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.