Cargando…

A comparison of two insulin infusion protocols in the medical intensive care unit by continuous glucose monitoring

BACKGROUND: Achieving good glycemic control in intensive care units (ICU) requires a safe and efficient insulin infusion protocol (IIP). We aimed to compare the clinical performance of two IIPs (Leuven versus modified Yale protocol) in patients admitted to medical ICU, by using continuous glucose mo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: De Block, Christophe E. M., Rogiers, Peter, Jorens, Philippe G., Schepens, Tom, Scuffi, Cosimo, Van Gaal, Luc F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Paris 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5120161/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27878572
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-016-0214-9
_version_ 1782469184781811712
author De Block, Christophe E. M.
Rogiers, Peter
Jorens, Philippe G.
Schepens, Tom
Scuffi, Cosimo
Van Gaal, Luc F.
author_facet De Block, Christophe E. M.
Rogiers, Peter
Jorens, Philippe G.
Schepens, Tom
Scuffi, Cosimo
Van Gaal, Luc F.
author_sort De Block, Christophe E. M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Achieving good glycemic control in intensive care units (ICU) requires a safe and efficient insulin infusion protocol (IIP). We aimed to compare the clinical performance of two IIPs (Leuven versus modified Yale protocol) in patients admitted to medical ICU, by using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). This is a pooled data analysis of two published prospective randomized controlled trials. CGM monitoring was performed in 57 MICU patients (age 64 ± 12 years, APACHE-II score 28 ± 7, non-diabetic/diabetic: 36/21). The main outcome measures were percentage of time in normoglycemia (80–110 mg/dl) and in hypoglycemia (<60 mg/dl), and glycemic variability (standard deviation, coefficient of variation, mean amplitude of glucose excursions, mean of daily differences). RESULTS: Twenty-two subjects were treated using the Leuven protocol and 35 by the Yale protocol; >63,000 CGM measurements were available. The percentage of time in normoglycemia (80–110 mg/dl) was higher (37 ± 15 vs. 26 ± 11%, p = 0.001) and percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia was lower (0[0–2] vs. 5[1–8]%, p = 0.001) in the Yale group. Median glycemia did not differ between groups (118[108–128] vs. 128[106–154] mg/dl). Glycemic variability was less pronounced in the Yale group (median SD 28[21–37] vs. 47[31–71] mg/dl, p = 0.001; CV 23[19–31] vs. 36[26–50]%, p = 0.001; MODD 35[26–41] vs. 60[33–94] mg/dl, p = 0.001). However, logistic regression could not identify type of IIP, diabetes status, age, BMI, or APACHE-II score as independent parameters for strict glucose control. CONCLUSIONS: The Yale protocol provided better average glycemia, more time spent in normoglycemia, less time in hypoglycemia, and less glycemic variability than the Leuven protocol, but was not independently associated with strict glycemic control. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13613-016-0214-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5120161
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer Paris
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51201612016-12-08 A comparison of two insulin infusion protocols in the medical intensive care unit by continuous glucose monitoring De Block, Christophe E. M. Rogiers, Peter Jorens, Philippe G. Schepens, Tom Scuffi, Cosimo Van Gaal, Luc F. Ann Intensive Care Research BACKGROUND: Achieving good glycemic control in intensive care units (ICU) requires a safe and efficient insulin infusion protocol (IIP). We aimed to compare the clinical performance of two IIPs (Leuven versus modified Yale protocol) in patients admitted to medical ICU, by using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). This is a pooled data analysis of two published prospective randomized controlled trials. CGM monitoring was performed in 57 MICU patients (age 64 ± 12 years, APACHE-II score 28 ± 7, non-diabetic/diabetic: 36/21). The main outcome measures were percentage of time in normoglycemia (80–110 mg/dl) and in hypoglycemia (<60 mg/dl), and glycemic variability (standard deviation, coefficient of variation, mean amplitude of glucose excursions, mean of daily differences). RESULTS: Twenty-two subjects were treated using the Leuven protocol and 35 by the Yale protocol; >63,000 CGM measurements were available. The percentage of time in normoglycemia (80–110 mg/dl) was higher (37 ± 15 vs. 26 ± 11%, p = 0.001) and percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia was lower (0[0–2] vs. 5[1–8]%, p = 0.001) in the Yale group. Median glycemia did not differ between groups (118[108–128] vs. 128[106–154] mg/dl). Glycemic variability was less pronounced in the Yale group (median SD 28[21–37] vs. 47[31–71] mg/dl, p = 0.001; CV 23[19–31] vs. 36[26–50]%, p = 0.001; MODD 35[26–41] vs. 60[33–94] mg/dl, p = 0.001). However, logistic regression could not identify type of IIP, diabetes status, age, BMI, or APACHE-II score as independent parameters for strict glucose control. CONCLUSIONS: The Yale protocol provided better average glycemia, more time spent in normoglycemia, less time in hypoglycemia, and less glycemic variability than the Leuven protocol, but was not independently associated with strict glycemic control. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13613-016-0214-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Paris 2016-11-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5120161/ /pubmed/27878572 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-016-0214-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research
De Block, Christophe E. M.
Rogiers, Peter
Jorens, Philippe G.
Schepens, Tom
Scuffi, Cosimo
Van Gaal, Luc F.
A comparison of two insulin infusion protocols in the medical intensive care unit by continuous glucose monitoring
title A comparison of two insulin infusion protocols in the medical intensive care unit by continuous glucose monitoring
title_full A comparison of two insulin infusion protocols in the medical intensive care unit by continuous glucose monitoring
title_fullStr A comparison of two insulin infusion protocols in the medical intensive care unit by continuous glucose monitoring
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of two insulin infusion protocols in the medical intensive care unit by continuous glucose monitoring
title_short A comparison of two insulin infusion protocols in the medical intensive care unit by continuous glucose monitoring
title_sort comparison of two insulin infusion protocols in the medical intensive care unit by continuous glucose monitoring
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5120161/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27878572
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-016-0214-9
work_keys_str_mv AT deblockchristopheem acomparisonoftwoinsulininfusionprotocolsinthemedicalintensivecareunitbycontinuousglucosemonitoring
AT rogierspeter acomparisonoftwoinsulininfusionprotocolsinthemedicalintensivecareunitbycontinuousglucosemonitoring
AT jorensphilippeg acomparisonoftwoinsulininfusionprotocolsinthemedicalintensivecareunitbycontinuousglucosemonitoring
AT schepenstom acomparisonoftwoinsulininfusionprotocolsinthemedicalintensivecareunitbycontinuousglucosemonitoring
AT scufficosimo acomparisonoftwoinsulininfusionprotocolsinthemedicalintensivecareunitbycontinuousglucosemonitoring
AT vangaallucf acomparisonoftwoinsulininfusionprotocolsinthemedicalintensivecareunitbycontinuousglucosemonitoring
AT deblockchristopheem comparisonoftwoinsulininfusionprotocolsinthemedicalintensivecareunitbycontinuousglucosemonitoring
AT rogierspeter comparisonoftwoinsulininfusionprotocolsinthemedicalintensivecareunitbycontinuousglucosemonitoring
AT jorensphilippeg comparisonoftwoinsulininfusionprotocolsinthemedicalintensivecareunitbycontinuousglucosemonitoring
AT schepenstom comparisonoftwoinsulininfusionprotocolsinthemedicalintensivecareunitbycontinuousglucosemonitoring
AT scufficosimo comparisonoftwoinsulininfusionprotocolsinthemedicalintensivecareunitbycontinuousglucosemonitoring
AT vangaallucf comparisonoftwoinsulininfusionprotocolsinthemedicalintensivecareunitbycontinuousglucosemonitoring