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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |