Nora Luethi1, Luca Cioccari1, Peter Biesenbach1, Luca Lucchetta1, Hidetoshi Kagaya1, Rhys Morgan1, Francesca Di Muzio1,2, Barbara Presello1,3, Duaa Gaafar1, Alison Hay1, Marco Crisman1,3, Roisin Toohey1, Hollie Russell1, Neil J Glassford1,4, Glenn M Eastwood1,4, Elif I Ekinci5,6, Adam M Deane7, Rinaldo Bellomo1,4, Johan Mårtensson1,8. 1. Department of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia. 2. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Agostino Gemelli, Roma, Italy. 3. Department of Perioperative, Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, Università degli Studi di Trieste, Ospedale di Cattinara, Strada di Fiume, Trieste, Italy. 4. Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Prahran, VIC, Australia. 5. Department of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia. 6. Department of Medicine Austin Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 7. Department of Intensive Care, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia. 8. Section of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility, biochemical efficacy, and safety of liberal versus conventional glucose control in ICU patients with diabetes. DESIGN: Prospective, open-label, sequential period study. SETTING: A 22-bed mixed ICU of a tertiary hospital in Australia. PATIENTS: We compared 350 consecutive patients with diabetes admitted over 15 months who received liberal glucose control with a preintervention control population of 350 consecutive patients with diabetes who received conventional glucose control. INTERVENTIONS: Liberal control patients received insulin therapy if glucose was greater than 14 mmol/L (target: 10-14 mmol/L [180-252 mg/dL]). Conventional control patients received insulin therapy if glucose was greater than 10 mmol/L (target: 6-10 mmol/L [108-180 mg/dL]). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We assessed separation in blood glucose, insulin requirements, occurrence of hypoglycemia (blood glucose ≤ 3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL]), creatinine and white cell count levels, and clinical outcomes. The median (interquartile range) time-weighted average blood glucose concentration was significantly higher in the liberal control group (11.0 mmol/L [8.7-12.0 mmol/L]; 198 mg/dL [157-216 mg/dL]) than in the conventional control group (9.6 mmol/L [8.5-11.0 mmol/L]; 173 mg/dL [153-198 mg/dL]; p < 0.001). Overall, 132 liberal control patients (37.7%) and 188 conventional control patients (53.7%) received insulin in ICU (p < 0.001). Hypoglycemia occurred in 6.6% and 8.6%, respectively (p = 0.32). Among 314 patients with glycated hemoglobin A1c greater than or equal to 7%, hypoglycemia occurred in 4.1% and 9.6%, respectively (p = 0.053). Trajectories of creatinine and white cell count were similar in the groups. In multivariable analyses, we found no independent association between glucose control and mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, or ICU-free days to day 30. CONCLUSIONS: In ICU patients with diabetes, during a period of liberal glucose control, insulin administration, and among patients with hemoglobin A1c greater than or equal to 7%, the prevalence of hypoglycemia was reduced, without negatively affecting serum creatinine, the white cell count response, or other clinical outcomes. (Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; ACTRN12615000216516).
OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility, biochemical efficacy, and safety of liberal versus conventional glucose control in ICU patients with diabetes. DESIGN: Prospective, open-label, sequential period study. SETTING: A 22-bed mixed ICU of a tertiary hospital in Australia. PATIENTS: We compared 350 consecutive patients with diabetes admitted over 15 months who received liberal glucose control with a preintervention control population of 350 consecutive patients with diabetes who received conventional glucose control. INTERVENTIONS: Liberal control patients received insulin therapy if glucose was greater than 14 mmol/L (target: 10-14 mmol/L [180-252 mg/dL]). Conventional control patients received insulin therapy if glucose was greater than 10 mmol/L (target: 6-10 mmol/L [108-180 mg/dL]). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We assessed separation in blood glucose, insulin requirements, occurrence of hypoglycemia (blood glucose ≤ 3.9 mmol/L [70 mg/dL]), creatinine and white cell count levels, and clinical outcomes. The median (interquartile range) time-weighted average blood glucose concentration was significantly higher in the liberal control group (11.0 mmol/L [8.7-12.0 mmol/L]; 198 mg/dL [157-216 mg/dL]) than in the conventional control group (9.6 mmol/L [8.5-11.0 mmol/L]; 173 mg/dL [153-198 mg/dL]; p < 0.001). Overall, 132 liberal control patients (37.7%) and 188 conventional control patients (53.7%) received insulin in ICU (p < 0.001). Hypoglycemia occurred in 6.6% and 8.6%, respectively (p = 0.32). Among 314 patients with glycated hemoglobin A1c greater than or equal to 7%, hypoglycemia occurred in 4.1% and 9.6%, respectively (p = 0.053). Trajectories of creatinine and white cell count were similar in the groups. In multivariable analyses, we found no independent association between glucose control and mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, or ICU-free days to day 30. CONCLUSIONS: In ICU patients with diabetes, during a period of liberal glucose control, insulin administration, and among patients with hemoglobin A1c greater than or equal to 7%, the prevalence of hypoglycemia was reduced, without negatively affecting serum creatinine, the white cell count response, or other clinical outcomes. (Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; ACTRN12615000216516).
Authors: Johannes Roth; Oliver Sommerfeld; Andreas L Birkenfeld; Christoph Sponholz; Ulrich A Müller; Christian von Loeffelholz Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2021-09-17 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Andrew J Boyle; Fabiana Madotto; John G Laffey; Giacomo Bellani; Tài Pham; Antonio Pesenti; B Taylor Thompson; Cecilia M O'Kane; Adam M Deane; Daniel F McAuley Journal: Crit Care Date: 2018-10-27 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Yong Hun Jung; Byung Kook Lee; Kyung Woon Jeung; Dong Hun Lee; Hyoung Youn Lee; Yong Soo Cho; Chun Song Youn; Jung Soo Park; Yong Ii Min Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Sarah M Dougherty; Julie Schommer; Jorge L Salinas; Barbara Zilles; Mary Belding-Schmitt; W Kirke Rogers; Amal Shibli-Rahhal; Brian T O'Neill Journal: J Clin Anesth Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 9.452