Arjun Devanesan1, Jonathan Lloyd2, Hanif Samad3, Shibaji Saha2. 1. Department of Anaesthesia, Newham University Hospital, London, UK. 2. Department of Intensive Care, Queens Hospital, Romford, UK. 3. Sengkang Health, Singapore.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Glycaemic control is an important predictor of mortality in sepsis. Various international organizations including the Surviving Sepsis campaign recommend glycaemic control in critical illness with a glucose target between 6.1-10 mmol/L. The NICE-SUGAR Trial in 2009 was a landmark in the debate over tight versus liberal glycaemic control in the critically ill and subsequent guidelines have been adjusted to reflect a move towards moderate glycaemic control. METHODS: We conducted a nation-wide study comparing glucose targets used in intensive care units in the United Kingdom in 2007 with those used in 2014 to 2015 to see the impact of the NICE-SUGAR study and subsequent guideline changes. RESULTS: We received a combined response from 81% of intensive care units in the UK. There was an increase in the average median glucose target in 2014/2015 compared with 2007 (7.8 versus 7.2; p < 0.01). However, there is still much variability in glucose targets used in critical care in the UK. CONCLUSIONS: There is an overall trend towards using a more moderate glucose target in critical care in the UK reflecting changes in international guidelines. However, it is likely that controversies, which still exist in the literature, are reflected in the variability of glycaemic control targets. It is possible that the advent of closed-loop or continuous glucose monitoring may have a further impact on this.
INTRODUCTION: Glycaemic control is an important predictor of mortality in sepsis. Various international organizations including the Surviving Sepsis campaign recommend glycaemic control in critical illness with a glucose target between 6.1-10 mmol/L. The NICE-SUGAR Trial in 2009 was a landmark in the debate over tight versus liberal glycaemic control in the critically ill and subsequent guidelines have been adjusted to reflect a move towards moderate glycaemic control. METHODS: We conducted a nation-wide study comparing glucose targets used in intensive care units in the United Kingdom in 2007 with those used in 2014 to 2015 to see the impact of the NICE-SUGAR study and subsequent guideline changes. RESULTS: We received a combined response from 81% of intensive care units in the UK. There was an increase in the average median glucose target in 2014/2015 compared with 2007 (7.8 versus 7.2; p < 0.01). However, there is still much variability in glucose targets used in critical care in the UK. CONCLUSIONS: There is an overall trend towards using a more moderate glucose target in critical care in the UK reflecting changes in international guidelines. However, it is likely that controversies, which still exist in the literature, are reflected in the variability of glycaemic control targets. It is possible that the advent of closed-loop or continuous glucose monitoring may have a further impact on this.
Authors: G van den Berghe; P Wouters; F Weekers; C Verwaest; F Bruyninckx; M Schetz; D Vlasselaers; P Ferdinande; P Lauwers; R Bouillon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mary Ann Peberdy; Clifton W Callaway; Robert W Neumar; Romergryko G Geocadin; Janice L Zimmerman; Michael Donnino; Andrea Gabrielli; Scott M Silvers; Arno L Zaritsky; Raina Merchant; Terry L Vanden Hoek; Steven L Kronick Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Simon Finfer; Dean R Chittock; Steve Yu-Shuo Su; Deborah Blair; Denise Foster; Vinay Dhingra; Rinaldo Bellomo; Deborah Cook; Peter Dodek; William R Henderson; Paul C Hébert; Stephane Heritier; Daren K Heyland; Colin McArthur; Ellen McDonald; Imogen Mitchell; John A Myburgh; Robyn Norton; Julie Potter; Bruce G Robinson; Juan J Ronco Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jean-Charles Preiser; Philippe Devos; Sergio Ruiz-Santana; Christian Mélot; Djillali Annane; Johan Groeneveld; Gaetano Iapichino; Xavier Leverve; Gérard Nitenberg; Pierre Singer; Jan Wernerman; Michael Joannidis; Adela Stecher; René Chioléro Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Donald E G Griesdale; Russell J de Souza; Rob M van Dam; Daren K Heyland; Deborah J Cook; Atul Malhotra; Rupinder Dhaliwal; William R Henderson; Dean R Chittock; Simon Finfer; Daniel Talmor Journal: CMAJ Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: R P Dellinger; Mitchell M Levy; Andrew Rhodes; Djillali Annane; Herwig Gerlach; Steven M Opal; Jonathan E Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Ivor S Douglas; Roman Jaeschke; Tiffany M Osborn; Mark E Nunnally; Sean R Townsend; Konrad Reinhart; Ruth M Kleinpell; Derek C Angus; Clifford S Deutschman; Flavia R Machado; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Steven Webb; Richard J Beale; Jean-Louis Vincent; Rui Moreno Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Etie S Moghissi; Mary T Korytkowski; Monica DiNardo; Daniel Einhorn; Richard Hellman; Irl B Hirsch; Silvio E Inzucchi; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi; M Sue Kirkman; Guillermo E Umpierrez Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-05-08 Impact factor: 19.112