Literature DB >> 24679489

Does the achievement of an intermediate glycemic target reduce organ failure and mortality? A post hoc analysis of the Glucontrol trial.

Sophie Penning1, J Geoffrey Chase2, Jean-Charles Preiser3, Christopher G Pretty4, Matthew Signal5, Christian Mélot6, Thomas Desaive7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This research evaluates the impact of the achievement of an intermediate target glycemic band on the severity of organ failure and mortality.
METHODS: Daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and the cumulative time in a 4.0 to 7.0 mmol/L band (cTIB) were evaluated daily up to 14 days in 704 participants of the multicentre Glucontrol trial (16 centers) that randomized patients to intensive group A (blood glucose [BG] target: 4.4-6.1 mmol/L) or conventional group B (BG target: 7.8-10.0 mmol/L). Sequential Organ Failure Assessment evolution was measured by percentage of patients with SOFA less than or equal to 5 on each day, percentage of individual organ failures, and percentage of organ failure-free days. Conditional and joint probability analysis of SOFA and cTIB 0.5 or more assessed the impact of achieving 4.0 to 7.0 mmol/L target glycemic range on organ failure. Odds ratios (OR) compare the odds risk of death for cTIB 0.5 or more vs cTIB less than 0.5, where a ratio greater than 1.0 indicates an improvement for achieving cTIB 0.5 or more independent of SOFA or glycemic target.
RESULTS: Groups A and B were matched for demographic and severity of illness data. Blood glucose differed between groups A and B (P<.05), as expected. There was no difference in the percentage of patients with SOFA less than or equal to 5, individual organ failures, and organ failure-free days between groups A and B over days 1 to 14. However, 20% to 30% of group A patients failed to achieve cTIB 0.5 or more for all days, and significant crossover confounds interpretation. Mortality OR was greater than 1.0 for patients with cTIB 0.5 or more in both groups but much higher for group A on all days.
CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in organ failure in the Glucontrol study based on intention to treat to different glycemic targets. Actual outcomes and significant crossover indicate that this result may not be due to the difference in target or treatment. Odds ratios-associated achieving an intermediate 4.0 to 7.0 mmol/L range improved outcome.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Critical care; Critically ill patients; Glycemia; Intensive care; Mortality; Organ failure

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24679489     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.01.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Crit Care        ISSN: 0883-9441            Impact factor:   3.425


  10 in total

Review 1.  Reporting on Glucose Control Metrics in the Intensive Care Unit.

Authors:  Tironi Rafael Machado; Preiser Jean-Charles
Journal:  Eur Endocrinol       Date:  2015-08-19

2.  Assessment of Glycemic Control Protocol (STAR) Through Compliance Analysis Amongst Malaysian ICU Patients.

Authors:  Athirah Abdul Razak; Asma Abu-Samah; Normy Norfiza Abdul Razak; Ummu Jamaludin; Fatanah Suhaimi; Azrina Ralib; Mohd Basri Mat Nor; Christopher Pretty; Jennifer Laura Knopp; James Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2020-06-04

3.  Time in blood glucose range 70 to 140 mg/dl >80% is strongly associated with increased survival in non-diabetic critically ill adults.

Authors:  James S Krinsley; Jean-Charles Preiser
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2015-04-20       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 4.  Dysglycemia in the critically ill patient: current evidence and future perspectives.

Authors:  Ignacio Aramendi; Gastón Burghi; William Manzanares
Journal:  Rev Bras Ter Intensiva       Date:  2017 Jul-Sep

5.  Untangling glycaemia and mortality in critical care.

Authors:  Vincent Uyttendaele; Jennifer L Dickson; Geoffrey M Shaw; Thomas Desaive; J Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2017-06-24       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 6.  Next-generation, personalised, model-based critical care medicine: a state-of-the art review of in silico virtual patient models, methods, and cohorts, and how to validation them.

Authors:  J Geoffrey Chase; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jennifer L Dickson; Antoine Pironet; Yeong Shiong Chiew; Christopher G Pretty; Geoffrey M Shaw; Balazs Benyo; Knut Moeller; Soroush Safaei; Merryn Tawhai; Peter Hunter; Thomas Desaive
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2018-02-20       Impact factor: 2.819

7.  3D kernel-density stochastic model for more personalized glycaemic control: development and in-silico validation.

Authors:  Vincent Uyttendaele; Jennifer L Knopp; Shaun Davidson; Thomas Desaive; Balazs Benyo; Geoffrey M Shaw; J Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 2.819

8.  Risk and reward: extending stochastic glycaemic control intervals to reduce workload.

Authors:  Vincent Uyttendaele; Jennifer L Knopp; Geoffrey M Shaw; Thomas Desaive; J Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2020-04-29       Impact factor: 2.819

9.  Insulin sensitivity in critically ill patients: are women more insulin resistant?

Authors:  Vincent Uyttendaele; J Geoffrey Chase; Jennifer L Knopp; Rebecca Gottlieb; Geoffrey M Shaw; Thomas Desaive
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 6.925

10.  Continuous glucose monitoring system can improve the quality of glucose control and glucose variability compared with point-of-care measurement in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Meizhu Lu; Yanyan Zuo; Jun Guo; Xiaoping Wen; Yan Kang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.817

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.