Cargando…

Is intensive glucose control bad for critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The monitoring and management of blood glucose concentration are standard practices in critical settings as hyperglycaemia has been shown close association with poorer outcomes. Several meta-analyses have revealed that intensive glucose control has no benefit in decreasing short-term mor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yao, Ren-qi, Ren, Chao, Wu, Guo-sheng, Zhu, Yi-bing, Xia, Zhao-fan, Yao, Yong-ming
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Ivyspring International Publisher 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7097913/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32226310
http://dx.doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.43447
_version_ 1783511075902193664
author Yao, Ren-qi
Ren, Chao
Wu, Guo-sheng
Zhu, Yi-bing
Xia, Zhao-fan
Yao, Yong-ming
author_facet Yao, Ren-qi
Ren, Chao
Wu, Guo-sheng
Zhu, Yi-bing
Xia, Zhao-fan
Yao, Yong-ming
author_sort Yao, Ren-qi
collection PubMed
description Background: The monitoring and management of blood glucose concentration are standard practices in critical settings as hyperglycaemia has been shown close association with poorer outcomes. Several meta-analyses have revealed that intensive glucose control has no benefit in decreasing short-term mortality among critically ill patients, while the studies these meta-analyses have incorporated have been largely divergent. We aim to perform a more comprehensive meta-analysis addressing this problem to provide stronger evidence. Methods: We conducted comprehensive searches for relevant randomized controlled studies in online databases, including the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed databases, up to September 1, 2018. The clinical data, which included all-cause mortality, severe hypoglycemia, need for RRT, infection resulting in sepsis, ICU mortality, 90-day mortality, 180-day mortality, and hospital and ICU lengths of stay, were screened and analyzed after data extraction. We applied odds ratios (ORs) to analyze dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes with a random effects model. Results: A total of 57 RCTs involving a total of 21840 patients were finally included. Patients admitted to the ICU who underwent intensive glucose control showed significantly reduced all-cause mortality (OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.80-1.00; P=0.04; I(2)=32%), reduced infection rate (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.51-0.82, P=0.0002; I(2)=47%), a lower occurrence of acquired sepsis (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65-0.99, P=0.04; I(2)=0%) and shortened length of ICU stay (MD: -0.70, 95% CI: -1.21--0.19, P=0.007, I(2)=70%) when compared to the same parameters as those treated with the usual care strategy. However, patients in the intensive glucose control group presented with a significantly higher risk of severe hypoglycemia (OR: 5.63, 95% CI: 4.02-7.87, P<0.00001; I(2)=67%). Conclusions: Critically ill patients undergoing intensive glucose control showed significantly reduced all-cause mortality, length of ICU stay and incidence of acquired infection and sepsis compared to the same parameters in patients treated with the usual care strategy, while the intensive glucose control strategy was associated with higher occurrence of severe hypoglycemic events.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7097913
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Ivyspring International Publisher
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70979132020-03-28 Is intensive glucose control bad for critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis Yao, Ren-qi Ren, Chao Wu, Guo-sheng Zhu, Yi-bing Xia, Zhao-fan Yao, Yong-ming Int J Biol Sci Research Paper Background: The monitoring and management of blood glucose concentration are standard practices in critical settings as hyperglycaemia has been shown close association with poorer outcomes. Several meta-analyses have revealed that intensive glucose control has no benefit in decreasing short-term mortality among critically ill patients, while the studies these meta-analyses have incorporated have been largely divergent. We aim to perform a more comprehensive meta-analysis addressing this problem to provide stronger evidence. Methods: We conducted comprehensive searches for relevant randomized controlled studies in online databases, including the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed databases, up to September 1, 2018. The clinical data, which included all-cause mortality, severe hypoglycemia, need for RRT, infection resulting in sepsis, ICU mortality, 90-day mortality, 180-day mortality, and hospital and ICU lengths of stay, were screened and analyzed after data extraction. We applied odds ratios (ORs) to analyze dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes with a random effects model. Results: A total of 57 RCTs involving a total of 21840 patients were finally included. Patients admitted to the ICU who underwent intensive glucose control showed significantly reduced all-cause mortality (OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.80-1.00; P=0.04; I(2)=32%), reduced infection rate (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.51-0.82, P=0.0002; I(2)=47%), a lower occurrence of acquired sepsis (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65-0.99, P=0.04; I(2)=0%) and shortened length of ICU stay (MD: -0.70, 95% CI: -1.21--0.19, P=0.007, I(2)=70%) when compared to the same parameters as those treated with the usual care strategy. However, patients in the intensive glucose control group presented with a significantly higher risk of severe hypoglycemia (OR: 5.63, 95% CI: 4.02-7.87, P<0.00001; I(2)=67%). Conclusions: Critically ill patients undergoing intensive glucose control showed significantly reduced all-cause mortality, length of ICU stay and incidence of acquired infection and sepsis compared to the same parameters in patients treated with the usual care strategy, while the intensive glucose control strategy was associated with higher occurrence of severe hypoglycemic events. Ivyspring International Publisher 2020-03-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7097913/ /pubmed/32226310 http://dx.doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.43447 Text en © The author(s) This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). See http://ivyspring.com/terms for full terms and conditions.
spellingShingle Research Paper
Yao, Ren-qi
Ren, Chao
Wu, Guo-sheng
Zhu, Yi-bing
Xia, Zhao-fan
Yao, Yong-ming
Is intensive glucose control bad for critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Is intensive glucose control bad for critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Is intensive glucose control bad for critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Is intensive glucose control bad for critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Is intensive glucose control bad for critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Is intensive glucose control bad for critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort is intensive glucose control bad for critically ill patients? a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7097913/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32226310
http://dx.doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.43447
work_keys_str_mv AT yaorenqi isintensiveglucosecontrolbadforcriticallyillpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT renchao isintensiveglucosecontrolbadforcriticallyillpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wuguosheng isintensiveglucosecontrolbadforcriticallyillpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhuyibing isintensiveglucosecontrolbadforcriticallyillpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT xiazhaofan isintensiveglucosecontrolbadforcriticallyillpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yaoyongming isintensiveglucosecontrolbadforcriticallyillpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis