Susan Shapiro Braithwaite1,2, Lisa P Clark3, Thaer Idrees4, Faisal Qureshi5, Oluwakemi T Soetan4. 1. , 1135 Ridge Road, Wilmette, IL, 60091, USA. susan.s.braithwaite@gmail.com. 2. Endocrinology Consults and Care, S.C, 3048 West Peterson Ave, Chicago, IL, 60659, USA. susan.s.braithwaite@gmail.com. 3. Presence Saint Francis Hospital, 355 Ridge Ave, Evanston, IL, 60202, USA. 4. Presence Saint Joseph Hospital, 2900 N. Lakeshore Dr, Chicago, IL, 60657, USA. 5. Presence Saint Joseph Hospital, 2800 N Sheridan Road Suite 309, Chicago, IL, 60657, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review examines algorithm design features that may reduce risk for hypoglycemia while preserving glycemic control during intravenous insulin infusion. We focus principally upon algorithms in which the assignment of the insulin infusion rate (IR) depends upon maintenance rate of insulin infusion (MR) or a multiplier. RECENT FINDINGS: Design features that may mitigate risk for hypoglycemia include use of a mid-protocol bolus feature and establishment of a low BG threshold for temporary interruption of infusion. Computer-guided dosing may improve target attainment without exacerbating risk for hypoglycemia. Column assignment (MR) within a tabular user-interpreted algorithm or multiplier may be specified initially according to patient characteristics and medical condition with revision during treatment based on patient response. We hypothesize that a strictly increasing sigmoidal relationship between MR-dependent IR and BG may reduce risk for hypoglycemia, in comparison to a linear relationship between multiplier-dependent IR and BG. Guidelines are needed that curb excessive up-titration of MR and recommend periodic pre-emptive trials of MR reduction. Future research should foster development of recommendations for "protocol maxima" of IR appropriate to patient condition.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review examines algorithm design features that may reduce risk for hypoglycemia while preserving glycemic control during intravenous insulin infusion. We focus principally upon algorithms in which the assignment of the insulin infusion rate (IR) depends upon maintenance rate of insulin infusion (MR) or a multiplier. RECENT FINDINGS: Design features that may mitigate risk for hypoglycemia include use of a mid-protocol bolus feature and establishment of a low BG threshold for temporary interruption of infusion. Computer-guided dosing may improve target attainment without exacerbating risk for hypoglycemia. Column assignment (MR) within a tabular user-interpreted algorithm or multiplier may be specified initially according to patient characteristics and medical condition with revision during treatment based on patient response. We hypothesize that a strictly increasing sigmoidal relationship between MR-dependent IR and BG may reduce risk for hypoglycemia, in comparison to a linear relationship between multiplier-dependent IR and BG. Guidelines are needed that curb excessive up-titration of MR and recommend periodic pre-emptive trials of MR reduction. Future research should foster development of recommendations for "protocol maxima" of IR appropriate to patient condition.
Entities:
Keywords:
Best practices; Critical care; Critical care protocols; Hypoglycemia; Insulin infusion; Insulin protocol
Authors: Alicia Evans; Aaron Le Compte; Chia-Siong Tan; Logan Ward; James Steel; Christopher G Pretty; Sophie Penning; Fatanah Suhaimi; Geoffrey M Shaw; Thomas Desaive; J Geoffrey Chase Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2012-01-01
Authors: Susan S Braithwaite; Renee Edkins; Kathy L Macgregor; Edward S Sredzienski; Michael Houston; Ben Zarzaur; Preston B Rich; Bernard Benedetto; Edmund J Rutherford Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Jean-Charles Preiser; J Geoffrey Chase; Roman Hovorka; Jeffrey I Joseph; James S Krinsley; Christophe De Block; Thomas Desaive; Luc Foubert; Pierre Kalfon; Ulrike Pielmeier; Tom Van Herpe; Jan Wernerman Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2016-11-01
Authors: Christopher A Newton; Dawn Smiley; Bruce W Bode; Abbas E Kitabchi; Paul C Davidson; Sol Jacobs; R Dennis Steed; Frankie Stentz; Limin Peng; Patrick Mulligan; Amado X Freire; Angel Temponi; Guillermo E Umpierrez Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Philip A Goldberg; Mark D Siegel; Robert S Sherwin; Joshua I Halickman; Michelle Lee; Valerie A Bailey; Sandy L Lee; James D Dziura; Silvio E Inzucchi Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 19.112
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
Authors: Alicia Evans; Geoffrey M Shaw; Aaron Le Compte; Chia-Siong Tan; Logan Ward; James Steel; Christopher G Pretty; Leesa Pfeifer; Sophie Penning; Fatanah Suhaimi; Matthew Signal; Thomas Desaive; J Geoffrey Chase Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2011-09-19 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Kent W Stewart; Christopher G Pretty; Hamish Tomlinson; Felicity L Thomas; József Homlok; Szabó Némedi Noémi; Attila Illyés; Geoffrey M Shaw; Balázs Benyó; J Geoffrey Chase Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 6.925