Tomoaki Yatabe1, Shigeaki Inoue2, Masahiko Sakaguchi3, Moritoki Egi4. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kochi Medical School, Kohasu, Oko-cho, Nankoku, Kochi, 783-8505, Japan. 2. Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Tokai University Hachioji Hospital, 1838 Ishikawa-cho, Hachioji, Tokyo, 192-0032, Japan. 3. Integrated Center for Advanced Medical Technologies, Kochi Medical School, Kohasu, Oko-cho, Nankoku, Kochi, 783-8505, Japan. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, Kobe University Hospital, 7-5-2 Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan. moriori@tg8.so-net.ne.jp.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The optimal target blood glucose concentration for acute glycemic control remains unclear because few studies have directly compared 144-180 with 110-144 or >180 mg/dL. Accordingly, we performed a network meta-analysis to compare four different target blood glucose levels (<110, 110-144, 144-180, and >180 mg/dL) in terms of the benefit and risk of insulin therapy. METHODS: We included all of the studies from three systematic reviews and searched the PubMed and Cochrane databases for other studies investigating glucose targets among critically ill patients. The primary outcome was hospital mortality, and the secondary outcomes were sepsis or bloodstream infection and the risk of hypoglycemia. Network meta-analysis to identify an optimal target glucose concentration. RESULTS: The network meta-analysis included 18,098 patients from 35 studies. There were no significant differences in the risk of mortality and infection among the four blood glucose ranges overall or in subgroup analysis. Conversely, target concentrations of <110 and 110-144 mg/dL were associated with a four to ninefold increase in the risk of hypoglycemia compared with 144-180 and >180 mg/dL. However, there were no significant differences between the target concentrations of 144-180 and >180 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis found no significant difference in the risk of mortality and infection among four target blood glucose ranges in critically ill patients, but indicated that target blood glucose levels of <110 and 110-144 mg/dL were associated with a higher risk of hypoglycemia than target levels of 144-180 and >180 mg/dL. Further studies are required to refute or confirm our findings.
PURPOSE: The optimal target blood glucose concentration for acute glycemic control remains unclear because few studies have directly compared 144-180 with 110-144 or >180 mg/dL. Accordingly, we performed a network meta-analysis to compare four different target blood glucose levels (<110, 110-144, 144-180, and >180 mg/dL) in terms of the benefit and risk of insulin therapy. METHODS: We included all of the studies from three systematic reviews and searched the PubMed and Cochrane databases for other studies investigating glucose targets among critically illpatients. The primary outcome was hospital mortality, and the secondary outcomes were sepsis or bloodstream infection and the risk of hypoglycemia. Network meta-analysis to identify an optimal target glucose concentration. RESULTS: The network meta-analysis included 18,098 patients from 35 studies. There were no significant differences in the risk of mortality and infection among the four blood glucose ranges overall or in subgroup analysis. Conversely, target concentrations of <110 and 110-144 mg/dL were associated with a four to ninefold increase in the risk of hypoglycemia compared with 144-180 and >180 mg/dL. However, there were no significant differences between the target concentrations of 144-180 and >180 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis found no significant difference in the risk of mortality and infection among four target blood glucose ranges in critically illpatients, but indicated that target blood glucose levels of <110 and 110-144 mg/dL were associated with a higher risk of hypoglycemia than target levels of 144-180 and >180 mg/dL. Further studies are required to refute or confirm our findings.
Authors: Yaseen M Arabi; Hani M Tamim; Gousia S Dhar; Abdulaziz Al-Dawood; Muhammad Al-Sultan; Maram H Sakkijha; Salim H Kahoul; Riette Brits Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Judith Jacobi; Nicholas Bircher; James Krinsley; Michael Agus; Susan S Braithwaite; Clifford Deutschman; Amado X Freire; Douglas Geehan; Benjamin Kohl; Stanley A Nasraway; Mark Rigby; Karen Sands; Lynn Schallom; Beth Taylor; Guillermo Umpierrez; John Mazuski; Holger Schunemann Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Yaseen M Arabi; Ousama C Dabbagh; Hani M Tamim; Abdullah A Al-Shimemeri; Ziad A Memish; Samir H Haddad; Sofia J Syed; Hema R Giridhar; Asgar H Rishu; Mouhamad O Al-Daker; Salim H Kahoul; Riette J Britts; Maram H Sakkijha Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Laura Evans; Andrew Rhodes; Waleed Alhazzani; Massimo Antonelli; Craig M Coopersmith; Craig French; Flávia R Machado; Lauralyn Mcintyre; Marlies Ostermann; Hallie C Prescott; Christa Schorr; Steven Simpson; W Joost Wiersinga; Fayez Alshamsi; Derek C Angus; Yaseen Arabi; Luciano Azevedo; Richard Beale; Gregory Beilman; Emilie Belley-Cote; Lisa Burry; Maurizio Cecconi; John Centofanti; Angel Coz Yataco; Jan De Waele; R Phillip Dellinger; Kent Doi; Bin Du; Elisa Estenssoro; Ricard Ferrer; Charles Gomersall; Carol Hodgson; Morten Hylander Møller; Theodore Iwashyna; Shevin Jacob; Ruth Kleinpell; Michael Klompas; Younsuck Koh; Anand Kumar; Arthur Kwizera; Suzana Lobo; Henry Masur; Steven McGloughlin; Sangeeta Mehta; Yatin Mehta; Mervyn Mer; Mark Nunnally; Simon Oczkowski; Tiffany Osborn; Elizabeth Papathanassoglou; Anders Perner; Michael Puskarich; Jason Roberts; William Schweickert; Maureen Seckel; Jonathan Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Tobias Welte; Janice Zimmerman; Mitchell Levy Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2021-10-02 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Mark P Plummer; Natalia Notkina; Ivan Timofeev; Peter J Hutchinson; Mark E Finnis; Arun K Gupta Journal: Crit Care Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 9.097