Cargando…

Glycaemic control targets after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Optimal glycaemic targets in traumatic brain injury (TBI) remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intensive with conventional glycaemic control in TBI requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hermanides, Jeroen, Plummer, Mark P., Finnis, Mark, Deane, Adam M., Coles, Jonathan P., Menon, David K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5775599/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29351760
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1883-y
_version_ 1783293944264654848
author Hermanides, Jeroen
Plummer, Mark P.
Finnis, Mark
Deane, Adam M.
Coles, Jonathan P.
Menon, David K.
author_facet Hermanides, Jeroen
Plummer, Mark P.
Finnis, Mark
Deane, Adam M.
Coles, Jonathan P.
Menon, David K.
author_sort Hermanides, Jeroen
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Optimal glycaemic targets in traumatic brain injury (TBI) remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intensive with conventional glycaemic control in TBI requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to November 2016. Outcomes of interest included ICU and in-hospital mortality, poor neurological outcome, the incidence of hypoglycaemia and infective complications. Data were analysed by pairwise random effects models with secondary analysis of differing levels of conventional glycaemic control. RESULTS: Ten RCTs, involving 1066 TBI patients were included. Three studies were conducted exclusively in a TBI population, whereas in seven trials, the TBI population was a sub-cohort of a mixed neurocritical or general ICU population. Glycaemic targets with intensive control ranged from 4.4 to 6.7 mmol/L, while conventional targets aimed to keep glucose levels below thresholds of 8.4–12 mmol/L. Conventional versus intensive control showed no association with ICU or hospital mortality (relative risk (RR) (95% CI) 0.93 (0.68–1.27), P = 0.64 and 1.07 (0.84–1.36), P = 0.62, respectively). The risk of a poor neurological outcome was higher with conventional control (RR (95% CI) = 1.10 (1.001–1.24), P = 0.047). However, severe hypoglycaemia occurred less frequently with conventional control (RR (95% CI) = 0.22 (0.09–0.52), P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of intensive glycaemic control shows no association with reduced mortality in TBI. Intensive glucose control showed a borderline significant reduction in the risk of poor neurological outcome, but markedly increased the risk of hypoglycaemia. These contradictory findings should motivate further research. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-017-1883-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5775599
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57755992018-01-31 Glycaemic control targets after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis Hermanides, Jeroen Plummer, Mark P. Finnis, Mark Deane, Adam M. Coles, Jonathan P. Menon, David K. Crit Care Research BACKGROUND: Optimal glycaemic targets in traumatic brain injury (TBI) remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intensive with conventional glycaemic control in TBI requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to November 2016. Outcomes of interest included ICU and in-hospital mortality, poor neurological outcome, the incidence of hypoglycaemia and infective complications. Data were analysed by pairwise random effects models with secondary analysis of differing levels of conventional glycaemic control. RESULTS: Ten RCTs, involving 1066 TBI patients were included. Three studies were conducted exclusively in a TBI population, whereas in seven trials, the TBI population was a sub-cohort of a mixed neurocritical or general ICU population. Glycaemic targets with intensive control ranged from 4.4 to 6.7 mmol/L, while conventional targets aimed to keep glucose levels below thresholds of 8.4–12 mmol/L. Conventional versus intensive control showed no association with ICU or hospital mortality (relative risk (RR) (95% CI) 0.93 (0.68–1.27), P = 0.64 and 1.07 (0.84–1.36), P = 0.62, respectively). The risk of a poor neurological outcome was higher with conventional control (RR (95% CI) = 1.10 (1.001–1.24), P = 0.047). However, severe hypoglycaemia occurred less frequently with conventional control (RR (95% CI) = 0.22 (0.09–0.52), P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of intensive glycaemic control shows no association with reduced mortality in TBI. Intensive glucose control showed a borderline significant reduction in the risk of poor neurological outcome, but markedly increased the risk of hypoglycaemia. These contradictory findings should motivate further research. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-017-1883-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5775599/ /pubmed/29351760 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1883-y Text en © The Author(s). 2018 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. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Hermanides, Jeroen
Plummer, Mark P.
Finnis, Mark
Deane, Adam M.
Coles, Jonathan P.
Menon, David K.
Glycaemic control targets after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Glycaemic control targets after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Glycaemic control targets after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Glycaemic control targets after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Glycaemic control targets after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Glycaemic control targets after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort glycaemic control targets after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5775599/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29351760
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1883-y
work_keys_str_mv AT hermanidesjeroen glycaemiccontroltargetsaftertraumaticbraininjuryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT plummermarkp glycaemiccontroltargetsaftertraumaticbraininjuryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT finnismark glycaemiccontroltargetsaftertraumaticbraininjuryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT deaneadamm glycaemiccontroltargetsaftertraumaticbraininjuryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT colesjonathanp glycaemiccontroltargetsaftertraumaticbraininjuryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT menondavidk glycaemiccontroltargetsaftertraumaticbraininjuryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis