BACKGROUND: Effective glucose control in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting has the potential to decrease morbidity and mortality rates and thereby decrease health care expenditures. To evaluate what constitutes effective glucose control, typically several metrics are reported, including time in range, time in mild and severe hypoglycemia, coefficient of variation, and others. To date, there is no one metric that combines all of these individual metrics to give a number indicative of overall performance. We proposed a composite metric that combines 5 commonly reported metrics, and we used this composite metric to compare 6 glucose controllers. METHODS: We evaluated the following controllers: Ideal Medical Technologies (IMT) artificial-intelligence-based controller, Yale protocol, Glucommander, Wintergerst et al PID controller, GRIP, and NICE-SUGAR. We evaluated each controller across 80 simulated patients, 4 clinically relevant exogenous dextrose infusions, and one nonclinical infusion as a test of the controller's ability to handle difficult situations. This gave a total of 2400 5-day simulations, and 585 604 individual glucose values for analysis. We used a random walk sensor error model that gave a 10% MARD. For each controller, we calculated severe hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL), mild hypoglycemia (40-69 mg/dL), normoglycemia (70-140 mg/dL), hyperglycemia (>140 mg/dL), and coefficient of variation (CV), as well as our novel controller metric. RESULTS: For the controllers tested, we achieved the following median values for our novel controller scoring metric: IMT: 88.1, YALE: 46.7, GLUC: 47.2, PID: 50, GRIP: 48.2, NICE: 46.4. CONCLUSION: The novel scoring metric employed in this study shows promise as a means for evaluating new and existing ICU-based glucose controllers, and it could be used in the future to compare results of glucose control studies in critical care. The IMT AI-based glucose controller demonstrated the most consistent performance results based on this new metric.
BACKGROUND: Effective glucose control in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting has the potential to decrease morbidity and mortality rates and thereby decrease health care expenditures. To evaluate what constitutes effective glucose control, typically several metrics are reported, including time in range, time in mild and severe hypoglycemia, coefficient of variation, and others. To date, there is no one metric that combines all of these individual metrics to give a number indicative of overall performance. We proposed a composite metric that combines 5 commonly reported metrics, and we used this composite metric to compare 6 glucose controllers. METHODS: We evaluated the following controllers: Ideal Medical Technologies (IMT) artificial-intelligence-based controller, Yale protocol, Glucommander, Wintergerst et al PID controller, GRIP, and NICE-SUGAR. We evaluated each controller across 80 simulated patients, 4 clinically relevant exogenous dextrose infusions, and one nonclinical infusion as a test of the controller's ability to handle difficult situations. This gave a total of 2400 5-day simulations, and 585 604 individual glucose values for analysis. We used a random walk sensor error model that gave a 10% MARD. For each controller, we calculated severe hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL), mild hypoglycemia (40-69 mg/dL), normoglycemia (70-140 mg/dL), hyperglycemia (>140 mg/dL), and coefficient of variation (CV), as well as our novel controller metric. RESULTS: For the controllers tested, we achieved the following median values for our novel controller scoring metric: IMT: 88.1, YALE: 46.7, GLUC: 47.2, PID: 50, GRIP: 48.2, NICE: 46.4. CONCLUSION: The novel scoring metric employed in this study shows promise as a means for evaluating new and existing ICU-based glucose controllers, and it could be used in the future to compare results of glucose control studies in critical care. The IMT AI-based glucose controller demonstrated the most consistent performance results based on this new metric.
Entities:
Keywords:
artificial intelligence; closed loop control; glucometrics; glucose; intensive care unit; knowledge-based system
Authors: Saumeth Cardona; Francisco J Pasquel; Maya Fayfman; Limin Peng; Sol Jacobs; Priyathama Vellanki; Jeff Weaver; Michael Halkos; Robert A Guyton; Vinod H Thourani; Guillermo E Umpierrez Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Harold L Lazar; Stuart R Chipkin; Carmel A Fitzgerald; Yusheng Bao; Howard Cabral; Carl S Apstein Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-03-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Edmond A Ryan; Tami Shandro; Kristy Green; Breay W Paty; Peter A Senior; David Bigam; A M James Shapiro; Marie-Christine Vantyghem Journal: Diabetes Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Christopher G Pretty; Aaron J Le Compte; J Geoffrey Chase; Geoffrey M Shaw; Jean-Charles Preiser; Sophie Penning; Thomas Desaive Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 6.925