Cargando…

Comparison of Three Protocols for Tight Glycemic Control in Cardiac Surgery Patients

OBJECTIVE: We performed a randomized trial to compare three insulin-titration protocols for tight glycemic control (TGC) in a surgical intensive care unit: an absolute glucose (Matias) protocol, a relative glucose change (Bath) protocol, and an enhanced model predictive control (eMPC) algorithm. RES...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Blaha, Jan, Kopecky, Petr, Matias, Michal, Hovorka, Roman, Kunstyr, Jan, Kotulak, Tomas, Lips, Michal, Rubes, David, Stritesky, Martin, Lindner, Jaroslav, Semrad, Michal, Haluzik, Martin
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Diabetes Association 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671097/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19196894
http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc08-1851
_version_ 1782166346941857792
author Blaha, Jan
Kopecky, Petr
Matias, Michal
Hovorka, Roman
Kunstyr, Jan
Kotulak, Tomas
Lips, Michal
Rubes, David
Stritesky, Martin
Lindner, Jaroslav
Semrad, Michal
Haluzik, Martin
author_facet Blaha, Jan
Kopecky, Petr
Matias, Michal
Hovorka, Roman
Kunstyr, Jan
Kotulak, Tomas
Lips, Michal
Rubes, David
Stritesky, Martin
Lindner, Jaroslav
Semrad, Michal
Haluzik, Martin
author_sort Blaha, Jan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: We performed a randomized trial to compare three insulin-titration protocols for tight glycemic control (TGC) in a surgical intensive care unit: an absolute glucose (Matias) protocol, a relative glucose change (Bath) protocol, and an enhanced model predictive control (eMPC) algorithm. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 120 consecutive patients after cardiac surgery were randomly assigned to the three protocols with a target glycemia range from 4.4 to 6.1 mmol/l. Intravenous insulin was administered continuously or in combination with insulin boluses (Matias protocol). Blood glucose was measured in 1- to 4-h intervals as requested by the protocols. RESULTS: The eMPC algorithm gave the best performance as assessed by time to target (8.8 ± 2.2 vs. 10.9 ± 1.0 vs. 12.3 ± 1.9 h; eMPC vs. Matias vs. Bath, respectively; P < 0.05), average blood glucose after reaching the target (5.2 ± 0.1 vs. 6.2 ± 0.1 vs. 5.8 ± 0.1 mmol/l; P < 0.01), time in target (62.8 ± 4.4 vs. 48.4 ± 3.28 vs. 55.5 ± 3.2%; P < 0.05), time in hyperglycemia >8.3 mmol/l (1.3 ± 1.2 vs. 12.8 ± 2.2 vs. 6.5 ± 2.0%; P < 0.05), and sampling interval (2.3 ± 0.1 vs. 2.1 ± 0.1 vs. 1.8 ± 0.1 h; P < 0.05). However, time in hypoglycemia risk range (2.9–4.3 mmol/l) in the eMPC group was the longest (22.2 ± 1.9 vs. 10.9 ± 1.5 vs. 13.1 ± 1.6; P < 0.05). No severe hypoglycemic episode (<2.3 mmol/l) occurred in the eMPC group compared with one in the Matias group and two in the Bath group. CONCLUSIONS: The eMPC algorithm provided the best TGC without increasing the risk of severe hypoglycemia while requiring the fewest glucose measurements. Overall, all protocols were safe and effective in the maintenance of TGC in cardiac surgery patients.
format Text
id pubmed-2671097
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher American Diabetes Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26710972010-05-01 Comparison of Three Protocols for Tight Glycemic Control in Cardiac Surgery Patients Blaha, Jan Kopecky, Petr Matias, Michal Hovorka, Roman Kunstyr, Jan Kotulak, Tomas Lips, Michal Rubes, David Stritesky, Martin Lindner, Jaroslav Semrad, Michal Haluzik, Martin Diabetes Care Original Research OBJECTIVE: We performed a randomized trial to compare three insulin-titration protocols for tight glycemic control (TGC) in a surgical intensive care unit: an absolute glucose (Matias) protocol, a relative glucose change (Bath) protocol, and an enhanced model predictive control (eMPC) algorithm. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 120 consecutive patients after cardiac surgery were randomly assigned to the three protocols with a target glycemia range from 4.4 to 6.1 mmol/l. Intravenous insulin was administered continuously or in combination with insulin boluses (Matias protocol). Blood glucose was measured in 1- to 4-h intervals as requested by the protocols. RESULTS: The eMPC algorithm gave the best performance as assessed by time to target (8.8 ± 2.2 vs. 10.9 ± 1.0 vs. 12.3 ± 1.9 h; eMPC vs. Matias vs. Bath, respectively; P < 0.05), average blood glucose after reaching the target (5.2 ± 0.1 vs. 6.2 ± 0.1 vs. 5.8 ± 0.1 mmol/l; P < 0.01), time in target (62.8 ± 4.4 vs. 48.4 ± 3.28 vs. 55.5 ± 3.2%; P < 0.05), time in hyperglycemia >8.3 mmol/l (1.3 ± 1.2 vs. 12.8 ± 2.2 vs. 6.5 ± 2.0%; P < 0.05), and sampling interval (2.3 ± 0.1 vs. 2.1 ± 0.1 vs. 1.8 ± 0.1 h; P < 0.05). However, time in hypoglycemia risk range (2.9–4.3 mmol/l) in the eMPC group was the longest (22.2 ± 1.9 vs. 10.9 ± 1.5 vs. 13.1 ± 1.6; P < 0.05). No severe hypoglycemic episode (<2.3 mmol/l) occurred in the eMPC group compared with one in the Matias group and two in the Bath group. CONCLUSIONS: The eMPC algorithm provided the best TGC without increasing the risk of severe hypoglycemia while requiring the fewest glucose measurements. Overall, all protocols were safe and effective in the maintenance of TGC in cardiac surgery patients. American Diabetes Association 2009-05 2009-02-05 /pmc/articles/PMC2671097/ /pubmed/19196894 http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc08-1851 Text en © 2009 by the American Diabetes Association. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) for details.
spellingShingle Original Research
Blaha, Jan
Kopecky, Petr
Matias, Michal
Hovorka, Roman
Kunstyr, Jan
Kotulak, Tomas
Lips, Michal
Rubes, David
Stritesky, Martin
Lindner, Jaroslav
Semrad, Michal
Haluzik, Martin
Comparison of Three Protocols for Tight Glycemic Control in Cardiac Surgery Patients
title Comparison of Three Protocols for Tight Glycemic Control in Cardiac Surgery Patients
title_full Comparison of Three Protocols for Tight Glycemic Control in Cardiac Surgery Patients
title_fullStr Comparison of Three Protocols for Tight Glycemic Control in Cardiac Surgery Patients
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Three Protocols for Tight Glycemic Control in Cardiac Surgery Patients
title_short Comparison of Three Protocols for Tight Glycemic Control in Cardiac Surgery Patients
title_sort comparison of three protocols for tight glycemic control in cardiac surgery patients
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671097/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19196894
http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc08-1851
work_keys_str_mv AT blahajan comparisonofthreeprotocolsfortightglycemiccontrolincardiacsurgerypatients
AT kopeckypetr comparisonofthreeprotocolsfortightglycemiccontrolincardiacsurgerypatients
AT matiasmichal comparisonofthreeprotocolsfortightglycemiccontrolincardiacsurgerypatients
AT hovorkaroman comparisonofthreeprotocolsfortightglycemiccontrolincardiacsurgerypatients
AT kunstyrjan comparisonofthreeprotocolsfortightglycemiccontrolincardiacsurgerypatients
AT kotulaktomas comparisonofthreeprotocolsfortightglycemiccontrolincardiacsurgerypatients
AT lipsmichal comparisonofthreeprotocolsfortightglycemiccontrolincardiacsurgerypatients
AT rubesdavid comparisonofthreeprotocolsfortightglycemiccontrolincardiacsurgerypatients
AT striteskymartin comparisonofthreeprotocolsfortightglycemiccontrolincardiacsurgerypatients
AT lindnerjaroslav comparisonofthreeprotocolsfortightglycemiccontrolincardiacsurgerypatients
AT semradmichal comparisonofthreeprotocolsfortightglycemiccontrolincardiacsurgerypatients
AT haluzikmartin comparisonofthreeprotocolsfortightglycemiccontrolincardiacsurgerypatients