Joanne E Hegarty1, Jane M Alsweiler2, Gregory G Gamble3, Caroline A Crowther3, Jane E Harding4. 1. Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; Newborn Services, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. 2. Newborn Services, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand; Department of Paediatrics: Child and Youth Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 3. Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 4. Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Electronic address: j.harding@auckland.ac.nz.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of different doses of prophylactic dextrose gel on glycemic stability assessed using continuous glucose monitoring in the first 48 hours when given to babies at risk of neonatal hypoglycemia. STUDY DESIGN: Continuous glucose monitoring was undertaken for the first 48 hours in 133 infants at risk of hypoglycemia who participated in the pre-hPOD randomized dosage trial of dextrose gel prophylaxis. RESULTS: Low glucose concentrations were detected in 41% of infants by blood glucose monitoring and 68% by continuous interstitial glucose monitoring. The mean ± SD duration of low interstitial glucose concentrations was 295 ± 351 minutes in the first 48 hours. Infants who received any dose of dextrose gel seemed to be less likely than those who received placebo gel to experience low glucose concentrations (<47 mg/dL [2.6 mmol/L]; P = .08), particularly if they received a single dose of 200 mg/kg (relative risk, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.10; P = .049). They also spent a greater proportion of time in the central glucose concentration range of 54-72 mg/dL (3-4 mmol/L) (any dose, mean ± SD, 58.2 ± 20.3%; placebo, 50.0 ± 21.9%; mean difference, 8.20%; 95% CI, 0.43-15.9%; P = .038). Dextrose gel did not increase recurrent or severe episodes of low glucose concentrations and did not increase the peak glucose concentration. These effects were similar for all trial dosages. CONCLUSIONS: Low glucose concentrations were common in infants at risk of hypoglycemia despite blood glucose monitoring and treatment. Prophylactic dextrose gel reduced the risk of hypoglycemia without adverse effects on glucose stability.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of different doses of prophylactic dextrose gel on glycemic stability assessed using continuous glucose monitoring in the first 48 hours when given to babies at risk of neonatal hypoglycemia. STUDY DESIGN: Continuous glucose monitoring was undertaken for the first 48 hours in 133 infants at risk of hypoglycemia who participated in the pre-hPOD randomized dosage trial of dextrose gel prophylaxis. RESULTS: Low glucose concentrations were detected in 41% of infants by blood glucose monitoring and 68% by continuous interstitial glucose monitoring. The mean ± SD duration of low interstitial glucose concentrations was 295 ± 351 minutes in the first 48 hours. Infants who received any dose of dextrose gel seemed to be less likely than those who received placebo gel to experience low glucose concentrations (<47 mg/dL [2.6 mmol/L]; P = .08), particularly if they received a single dose of 200 mg/kg (relative risk, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.10; P = .049). They also spent a greater proportion of time in the central glucose concentration range of 54-72 mg/dL (3-4 mmol/L) (any dose, mean ± SD, 58.2 ± 20.3%; placebo, 50.0 ± 21.9%; mean difference, 8.20%; 95% CI, 0.43-15.9%; P = .038). Dextrose gel did not increase recurrent or severe episodes of low glucose concentrations and did not increase the peak glucose concentration. These effects were similar for all trial dosages. CONCLUSIONS: Low glucose concentrations were common in infants at risk of hypoglycemia despite blood glucose monitoring and treatment. Prophylactic dextrose gel reduced the risk of hypoglycemia without adverse effects on glucose stability.
Authors: Christopher J D McKinlay; Jane M Alsweiler; Nicola S Anstice; Nataliia Burakevych; Arijit Chakraborty; J Geoffrey Chase; Gregory D Gamble; Deborah L Harris; Robert J Jacobs; Yannan Jiang; Nabin Paudel; Ryan J San Diego; Benjamin Thompson; Trecia A Wouldes; Jane E Harding Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Jeffrey R Kaiser; Shasha Bai; Neal Gibson; Greg Holland; Tsai Mei Lin; Christopher J Swearingen; Jennifer K Mehl; Nahed O ElHassan Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: K Beardsall; S Vanhaesebrouck; A L Ogilvy-Stuart; C Vanhole; M VanWeissenbruch; P Midgley; M Thio; L Cornette; I Ossuetta; C R Palmer; I Iglesias; M de Jong; B Gill; F de Zegher; D B Dunger Journal: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed Date: 2012-07-12 Impact factor: 5.747
Authors: Joanne Elizabeth Hegarty; Jane Elizabeth Harding; Gregory David Gamble; Caroline Anne Crowther; Richard Edlin; Jane Marie Alsweiler Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2016-10-25 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Jane E Harding; Joanne E Hegarty; Caroline A Crowther; Richard P Edlin; Gregory D Gamble; Jane M Alsweiler Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Taygen Edwards; Jane M Alsweiler; Caroline A Crowther; Richard Edlin; Greg D Gamble; Joanne E Hegarty; Luling Lin; Christopher J D McKinlay; Jenny A Rogers; Benjamin Thompson; Trecia A Wouldes; Jane E Harding Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 157.335