Cargando…
Intensive Insulin Therapy for Septic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Background. Studies on the effect of intensive insulin therapy (IIT) in septic patients with hyperglycemia have given inconsistent results. The primary purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether it is effective in reducing mortality. Methods. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Libra...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4086473/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25136614 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/698265 |
_version_ | 1782324812349177856 |
---|---|
author | Song, Fang Zhong, Liu-Jun Han, Liang Xie, Guo-Hao Xiao, Cheng Zhao, Bing Hu, Yao-Qin Wang, Shu-Yan Qin, Chao-Jin Zhang, Yan Lai, Deng-Ming Cui, Ping Fang, Xiang-Ming |
author_facet | Song, Fang Zhong, Liu-Jun Han, Liang Xie, Guo-Hao Xiao, Cheng Zhao, Bing Hu, Yao-Qin Wang, Shu-Yan Qin, Chao-Jin Zhang, Yan Lai, Deng-Ming Cui, Ping Fang, Xiang-Ming |
author_sort | Song, Fang |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background. Studies on the effect of intensive insulin therapy (IIT) in septic patients with hyperglycemia have given inconsistent results. The primary purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether it is effective in reducing mortality. Methods. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and relevant reference lists up to September 2013 and including randomized controlled trials that compared IIT with conventional glucose management in septic patients. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. And our primary outcome measure was pooled in the random effects model. Results. We identified twelve randomized controlled trials involving 4100 patients. Meta-analysis showed that IIT did not reduce any of the outcomes: overall mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.98, 95% CI [0.85, 1.15], P = 0.84), 28-day mortality (RR = 0.66, 95% CI [0.40, 1.10], P = 0.11), 90-day mortality (RR = 1.10, 95% CI [0.97, 1.26], P = 0.13), ICU mortality (RR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.77, 1.14], P = 0.52), hospital mortality (RR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.86, 1.11], P = 0.71), severity of illness, and length of ICU stay. Conversely, the incidence of hypoglycemia was markedly higher in the IIT (RR = 2.93, 95% CI [1.69, 5.06], P = 0.0001). Conclusions. For patients with sepsis, IIT and conservative glucose management show similar efficacy, but ITT is associated with a higher incidence of hypoglycemia. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4086473 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Hindawi Publishing Corporation |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-40864732014-08-18 Intensive Insulin Therapy for Septic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Song, Fang Zhong, Liu-Jun Han, Liang Xie, Guo-Hao Xiao, Cheng Zhao, Bing Hu, Yao-Qin Wang, Shu-Yan Qin, Chao-Jin Zhang, Yan Lai, Deng-Ming Cui, Ping Fang, Xiang-Ming Biomed Res Int Review Article Background. Studies on the effect of intensive insulin therapy (IIT) in septic patients with hyperglycemia have given inconsistent results. The primary purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether it is effective in reducing mortality. Methods. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and relevant reference lists up to September 2013 and including randomized controlled trials that compared IIT with conventional glucose management in septic patients. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. And our primary outcome measure was pooled in the random effects model. Results. We identified twelve randomized controlled trials involving 4100 patients. Meta-analysis showed that IIT did not reduce any of the outcomes: overall mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.98, 95% CI [0.85, 1.15], P = 0.84), 28-day mortality (RR = 0.66, 95% CI [0.40, 1.10], P = 0.11), 90-day mortality (RR = 1.10, 95% CI [0.97, 1.26], P = 0.13), ICU mortality (RR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.77, 1.14], P = 0.52), hospital mortality (RR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.86, 1.11], P = 0.71), severity of illness, and length of ICU stay. Conversely, the incidence of hypoglycemia was markedly higher in the IIT (RR = 2.93, 95% CI [1.69, 5.06], P = 0.0001). Conclusions. For patients with sepsis, IIT and conservative glucose management show similar efficacy, but ITT is associated with a higher incidence of hypoglycemia. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2014 2014-06-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4086473/ /pubmed/25136614 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/698265 Text en Copyright © 2014 Fang Song et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Article Song, Fang Zhong, Liu-Jun Han, Liang Xie, Guo-Hao Xiao, Cheng Zhao, Bing Hu, Yao-Qin Wang, Shu-Yan Qin, Chao-Jin Zhang, Yan Lai, Deng-Ming Cui, Ping Fang, Xiang-Ming Intensive Insulin Therapy for Septic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials |
title | Intensive Insulin Therapy for Septic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials |
title_full | Intensive Insulin Therapy for Septic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials |
title_fullStr | Intensive Insulin Therapy for Septic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials |
title_full_unstemmed | Intensive Insulin Therapy for Septic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials |
title_short | Intensive Insulin Therapy for Septic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials |
title_sort | intensive insulin therapy for septic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4086473/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25136614 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/698265 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT songfang intensiveinsulintherapyforsepticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT zhongliujun intensiveinsulintherapyforsepticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT hanliang intensiveinsulintherapyforsepticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT xieguohao intensiveinsulintherapyforsepticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT xiaocheng intensiveinsulintherapyforsepticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT zhaobing intensiveinsulintherapyforsepticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT huyaoqin intensiveinsulintherapyforsepticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT wangshuyan intensiveinsulintherapyforsepticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT qinchaojin intensiveinsulintherapyforsepticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT zhangyan intensiveinsulintherapyforsepticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT laidengming intensiveinsulintherapyforsepticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT cuiping intensiveinsulintherapyforsepticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT fangxiangming intensiveinsulintherapyforsepticpatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials |