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