DOCSLIB.ORG

Optimal Glucose Management in the Perioperative Period

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Optimal Glucose Management in the Perioperative Period Optimal Glucose Management in the Perioperative Period Charity H. Evans, MD, MHCM*, Jane Lee, MD, PhD, Melissa K. Ruhlman, MD KEYWORDS Blood glucose Glucose management Glycemic control Hyperglycemia Hypoglycemia Perioperative Surgical Tight glycemic control KEY POINTS Hyperglycemia, defined as a level of blood glucose (BG) greater than 180 mg/dL, in the perioperative period is associated with poor clinical outcomes; treating hyperglycemia in critically ill patients can lead to decreased morbidity and mortality. The gold standard for BG measurement is a venous plasma sample evaluated through the clinical laboratory. Intensive insulin therapy, defined as a target treatment BG range of 80 to 110 mg/dL, significantly increases the incidence of hypoglycemia and has not been proven to be beneficial in surgical patients. When determining when to treat surgical patients for hyperglycemia and what target BG to achieve, the surgeon must take into account the patient’s clinical status, because the evidence has shown optimal benefit at different levels. In critically ill and noncritically ill surgical patients, insulin therapy should be used with a goal BG of 140 to 180 mg/dL. INTRODUCTION Hyperglycemia is a common finding in patients undergoing surgery. Up to 40% of noncardiac surgery patients have a postoperative level of blood glucose (BG) greater than 140 mg/dL, with 25% of those patients having a level greater than 180 mg/dL.1 Perioperative hyperglycemia has been associated with increased morbidity, decreased survival, and increased resource utilization.2–4 For example, McConnell and researchers5 found a mean 48-hour postoperative glucose greater than Disclosure Statement: No actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this review. Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 983280 Nebraska Medical Cen- ter, Omaha, NE 68198-3280, USA * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] Surg Clin N Am 95 (2015) 337–354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2014.11.003 surgical.theclinics.com 0039-6109/15/$ – see front matter Published by Elsevier Inc. 338 Evans et al 200 mg/dL in patients after colorectal surgery was associated with an increased inci- dence of surgical site infection. Similar associations have been found in patients following total joint arthroplasty, infra-inguinal vascular surgery, orthopedic spinal sur- gery, hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery, and mastectomy.6–10 As a treatable and therefore preventable complication, optimal perioperative glycemic control is quickly becoming standard of care. Evidence suggesting hyperglycemia is a modifiable and independent predictor of adverse outcomes in surgical patients led to widespread implementation of intensive insulin therapy (IIT) with perioperative BG targets of 80 to 110 mg/dL. However, further investigation into the use of IIT failed to show a survival benefit, leading researchers to question what constitutes “normoglycemia” in the perioperative period. The purpose of this review is to summarize the pertinent research on perioperative glucose man- agement, evaluate the pathophysiology of glucose control and glycemic disturbances, discuss the workup and assessment of preoperative patients, and analyze optimal management strategies. NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Hyperglycemia in the critically ill was once viewed as a normal adaptive response to the stress placed on the body by disease. Insulin resistance was thought to be caus- ative factor, because it has been demonstrated in greater than 80% of all critically ill patients.11 Additional research showed that hyperglycemia is the clinical endpoint of multiple physiologic processes, including increased cortisol, catecholamines, glucagon, growth hormone, gluconeogenesis, and glycogenolysis.12 Once viewed as an adaptive response essential for survival, hyperglycemia was not routinely moni- tored or controlled in the perioperative patient. In the late 1980s, researchers discovered improved cardiac function with glucose- insulin-potassium (GIK) infusion for 48 hours after coronary artery bypass grafting.13 GIK was found to be safe and effective in the treatment of refractory left ventricular fail- ure after grafting. Early studies involving GIK emphasized the importance of glucose and insulin in surgical patients, but offered little insight to glycemic control. The bene- ficial effect of GIK on cardiac function was likely due to the metabolic effects of insulin, including the ability to promote the use of glucose as a primary myocardial energy substrate. However, these effects were unrelated to glycemic control because BG was not corrected or controlled. The adverse outcomes of individuals with diabetes were established in the early 1990s and were thought to be secondary to the direct effect of hyperglycemia on im- mune function, pathogen growth, and vascular permeability, and the indirect effect via the long-term consequences of hyperglycemia on the microvascular system.14,15 In critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), levels of BG greater than 180 mg/dL are associated with impaired neutrophil function, increased infection risk, longer hospital stays, and increased mortality.3 Further studies showed that IIT with intravenous (IV) insulin to a level of target glucose less than 150 mg/dL reduced the inci- dence of myocardial infarction (MI) and cerebrovascular accidents (CVA) in diabetics with known atherosclerosis. MI and CVA constituted most of the postoperative compli- cations in diabetics. Therefore, researchers proposed that better glycemic control may improve other perioperative complications in patients with diabetes. Early studies focused on perioperative glycemic control and the risk of infectious complications after coronary artery bypass surgery. Researchers showed that postoperative hyperglyce- mia is an independent predictor of short-term infectious complications and recommen- ded a glucose target level of less than 200 mg/dL to reduce the risk of infection.16 Optimal Glucose Management 339 In 2001, Brownlee17 demonstrated under experimental conditions that concentra- tions of glucose greater than 300 mg/dL were clearly deleterious, mediated by a hyperglycemia-induced process of overproduction of superoxide by the mitochondrial electron-transport chain. These studies were completed in animals, but provided the only scientific guidance for glycemic targets in humans. A landmark study published by van den Berghe and colleagues in 2001 then changed the long-held beliefs about stress hyperglycemia. In contrast to earlier beliefs that hyperglycemia was just a normal adaptive response to the stress placed on the body by disease, the Leuvin I researchers postulated that elevations in serum glucose contributed to the patho- physiology of critical illness. Leuvin I compared the conventional management in which BG was treated only when greater than 200 mg/dL to IIT regimen targeting a level of BG between 80 and 110 mg/dL. Van den Berghe and colleagues18 demon- strated a 4% decrease in the mortality of surgical critical care patients randomized to the IIT group. This study included mostly surgical patients, of which 63% underwent a cardiac procedure. The Leuven II study published in 2006 focused on nonsurgical patients. Similar to the Leuven I study, patients were randomly assigned to strict normalization of BG be- tween 80 and 110 mg/dL with the use of insulin infusion or to conventional therapy, with insulin administered when level of BG exceeded 215 mg/dL, with the infusion tapered when the level decreased to less than 180 mg/dL. This study was unable to show the mortality benefit seen in the Leuven I study because IIT reduced levels of BG but did not significantly reduce mortality.19 The external validity of the Leuven studies has been questioned and may explain why the results are considered incon- clusive. Although inconclusive, the Leuven trials clearly showed that a level of BG higher than 180 mg/dL cannot be considered acceptable. Additional retrospective tri- als by Krinsley20 and Finney and colleagues21 in 2003 and 2004, respectively, found that when BG was controlled less than 150 mg/dL, patients had better outcomes than those with higher levels. The external validity of the Leuven studies led researchers to question the evidence. In the late 2000s, several large single-center and multicenter prospective trials were completed to further evaluate target BG ranges. All studies to date titrated insulin ther- apy to maintain a level of BG between 80 and 110 mg/dL in the intervention group. Prior studies, including Leuven I and II, managed the control groups with insulin to a BG range of 180 to 200 mg/dL. In comparison, the NICE-SUGAR and GluControl trials used a control target value of 140 to 180 mg/dL. Review of pertinent trials of tight glucose control by IIT (Table 1) revealed no significant difference in primary outcome, specifically mortality, between the 2 groups, with the exception of the Leuven I and NICE-SUGAR studies, in opposite directions. A significant secondary outcome revealed in several studies is tight glucose control by IIT, associated with a 4-fold to 6-fold increase in the incidence of hypoglycemia.22,23 Guidelines for perioperative glycemic control are limited by the available evidence. However, when viewed as a whole, the evidence clearly shows that perioperative hy- perglycemia is associated with worse outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to sup- port tight glucose control to a target of 80 to 120 mg/dL over conventional glucose
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Therapeutic Medications Against Diabetes: What We Have and What We Expect
    Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 139 (2019) 3–15 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/addr Therapeutic medications against diabetes: What we have and what we expect Cheng Hu a,b, Weiping Jia a,⁎ a Shanghai Diabetes Institute, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Diabetes Mellitus, Shanghai Key Clinical Center for Metabolic Diseases, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, 600 Yishan Road, Shanghai 200233, People's Republic of China b Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital South Campus, 6600 Nanfeng Road, Shanghai 200433, People's Republic of China article info abstract Article history: Diabetes has become one of the largest global health and economic burdens, with its increased prevalence and Received 28 June 2018 high complication ratio. Stable and satisfactory blood glucose control are vital to reduce diabetes-related compli- Received in revised form 1 September 2018 cations. Therefore, continuous attempts have been made in antidiabetic drugs, treatment routes, and traditional Accepted 27 November 2018 Chinese medicine to achieve better disease control. New antidiabetic drugs and appropriate combinations of Available online 5 December 2018 these drugs have increased diabetes control significantly. Besides, novel treatment routes including oral antidia- betic peptide delivery, nanocarrier delivery system, implantable drug delivery system are also pivotal for diabetes Keywords: fi Diabetes control, with its greater ef ciency, increased bioavailability, decreased toxicity and reduced dosing frequency. Treatment Among these new routes, nanotechnology, artificial pancreas and islet cell implantation have shown great poten- Drug delivery tial in diabetes therapy. Traditional Chinese medicine also offer new options for diabetes treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Postoperative Tight Glycemic Control
    Wang et al. BMC Endocrine Disorders (2018) 18:42 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-018-0268-9 RESEARCHARTICLE Open Access Postoperative tight glycemic control significantly reduces postoperative infection rates in patients undergoing surgery: a meta-analysis Yuan-yuan Wang1, Shuang-fei Hu2, Hui-min Ying1, Long Chen2, Hui-li Li1, Fang Tian1 and Zhen-feng Zhou2* Abstract Background: The benefit results of postoperative tight glycemic control (TGC) were controversial and there was a lack of well-powered studies that support current guideline recommendations. Methods: The EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched utilizing the key words “Blood Glucose”, “insulin” and “Postoperative Period” to retrieve all randomized controlled trials evaluating the benefits of postoperative TGC as compared to conventional glycemic control (CGC) in patients undergoing surgery. Results: Fifteen studies involving 5053 patients were identified. As compared to CGC group, there were lower risks of total postoperative infection (9.4% vs. 15.8%; RR 0.586, 95% CI 0.504 to 0.680, p < 0.001) and wound infection (4. 6% vs. 7.2%; RR 0.620, 95% CI 0.422 to 0.910, p = 0.015) in TGC group. TGC also showed a lower risk of postoperative short-term mortality (3.8% vs. 5.4%; RR 0.692, 95% CI 0.527 to 0.909, p = 0.008), but sensitivity analyses showed that the result was mainly influenced by one study. The patients in the TGC group experienced a significant higher rate of postoperative hypoglycemia (22.3% vs. 11.0%; RR 3.145, 95% CI 1.928 to 5.131, p < 0.001) and severe hypoglycemia (2.8% vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Intensive Insulin Therapy for Tight Glycemic Control Research Therapy Monitoring Nursing
    Proceedings from The Seventh Conference The CareFusion Center for Safety and Clinical Excellence June 7-8, 2007, San Diego, CA Philip J. Schneider, MS, FASHP, Editor Intensive Insulin Therapy for Tight Glycemic Control Research Therapy Monitoring Nursing Conference Report Published by The CareFusion Center for Safety and Clinical Excellence www.cardinalhealth.com/clinicalcenter International Conference on Intensive Insulin Therapy for Tight Glycemic Control The seventh invitational conference at the CareFusion Center for Safety and Clinical Excellence in San Diego, held June 7-8, 2007, brought together a distinguished faculty from clinical practice, academia, and organizations. Judith Jacobi, PharmD, FCCM, FCCP, BCPS, Critical Care Pharmacist, Methodist Hospital/Clarian Health, Indianapolis, IN and Timothy S. Bailey, MD, FACE, CPI, Advanced Metabolic Care and Research, Escondido, CA chaired the conference. Internationally recognized experts on research, current issues and opportunities in the use of intensive insulin therapy for tight glycemic control (TGC IIT) presented. This conference report summarizes the information presented on TGC IIT with regard to research findings, safety concerns, emerging practices, monitoring, and nursing issues as researchers and clinicians seek to optimize insulin therapy to help maintain normoglycemia in critically ill patients. The proceedings were edited by Philip J. Schneider, MS, FASHP, Clinical Professor and Director, Latiolais Leadership Program, College of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University, Columbus,
    [Show full text]
  • Pharmacist Glycemic Control Team Associated with Improved
    At a Glance Original Research Practical Implications p e128 Author Information p e134 Full text and PDF www.ajmc.com Web exclusive Pharmacist Glycemic Control Team Associated With Improved Perioperative Glycemic and Utilization Outcomes David M. Mosen, PhD, MPH; Karen S. Mularski, MD; Richard A. Mularski, MD, MSHS, MCR; Ariel K. Hill, AB; and Elizabeth Shuster, MS atients with diabetes and stress hyperglycemia are frequently hospitalized for surgical procedures,1 and ABSTRACT recent estimates indicate that 30% to 50% of US inpa- Objectives: Perioperative hyperglycemia is a risk factor for P 1,2 tients have diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. Multiple studies increased surgical morbidity and mortality. Pharmacy-led manage- have documented the risks of perioperative hyperglycemia, ment teams may improve glycemic control and postoperative out- including poor surgical outcomes and higher readmission comes. We sought to determine whether a pharmacist-led glycemic control team is associated with improved glycemic control and rates.1-4 However, improved glycemic control leads to reduc- reduced postdischarge utilization and medical costs. tions in hospital complications, length of stay, and mortality.1,5-7 Study Design: Retrospective, observational study. Multiple professional societies, agencies, and task forces have issued guidelines recommending methods to achieve Methods: We assessed patient-level outcomes during a 12-month pre-intervention period and compared them at years 1 and 2 post safe and effective glycemic control in hospitalized patients.8-12 implementation at a tertiary care multi-specialty medical center. Although the optimal target glucose range for hospitalized The patients were noncritically ill postoperative surgical patients patients continues to evolve based on results of recent clini- followed 72 hours post surgery (days 1-3).
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
    THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND APPLIED RESEARCH AND EDUCATION VOLUME 39 | SUPPLEMENT 1 WWW.DIABETES.ORG/DIABETESCARE JANUARY 2016 PLE M E P N U T S 1 AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION STANDARDS OF MEDICAL CARE IN DIABETES—2016 ISSN 0149-5992 American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2016 January 2016 Volume 39, Supplement 1 [T]he simple word Care may suffice to express [the journal’s] philosophical mission. The new journal is designed to promote better patient care by serving the expanded needs of all health professionals committed to the care of patients with diabetes. As such, the American Diabetes Association views Diabetes Care as a reaffirmation of Francis Weld Peabody’s contention that “the secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.” —Norbert Freinkel, Diabetes Care, January-February 1978 EDITOR IN CHIEF William T. Cefalu, MD ASSOCIATE EDITORS EDITORIAL BOARD George Bakris, MD Nicola Abate, MD Rita Rastogi Kalyani, MD, MHS, FACP Lawrence Blonde, MD, FACP Silva Arslanian, MD Rory J. McCrimmon, MBChB, MD, FRCP Andrew J.M. Boulton, MD Angelo Avogaro, MD, PhD Harold David McIntyre, MD, FRACP David D’Alessio, MD Ananda Basu, MD, FRCP Gianluca Perseghin, MD Sherita Hill Golden, MD, MHS, FAHA John B. Buse, MD, PhD Anne L. Peters, MD Mary de Groot, PhD Sonia Caprio, MD Jonathan Q. Purnell, MD Eddie L. Greene, MD Robert Chilton, DO Peter Reaven, MD Frank B. Hu, MD, MPH, PhD Kenneth Cusi, MD, FACP, FACE Helena Wachslicht Rodbard, MD Derek LeRoith, MD, PhD Paresh Dandona, MD, PhD David J. Schneider, MD Robert G.
    [Show full text]
  • The Main Events in the History of Diabetes Mellitus
    Chapter 1 The Main Events in the History of Diabetes Mellitus Jacek Zajac, Anil Shrestha, Parini Patel, and Leonid Poretsky In Antiquity A medical condition producing excessive thirst, continuous urination, and severe weight loss has interested medical authors for over three millennia. Unfortunately, until the early part of twentieth century the prognosis for a patient with this condition was no better than it was over 3000 years ago. Since the ancient physicians described almost exclusively cases of what is today known as type 1 diabetes mellitus, the outcome was invariably fatal. Ebers Papyrus, which was written around 1500 BC, excavated in 1862 AD from an ancient grave in Thebes, Egypt, and published by Egyptologist Georg Ebers in 1874, describes, among various other ailments and their remedies, a condition of “too great emptying of the urine” – perhaps, the reference to diabetes mellitus. For the treatment of this condition, ancient Egyptian physicians were advocating the use of wheat grains, fruit, and sweet beer.1,2 Physicians in India at around the same time developed what can be described as the first clinical test for dia- betes. They observed that the urine from people with diabetes attracted ants and flies. They named the condition “madhumeha” or “honey urine.” Indian physicians also noted that patients with “madhumeha” suffered from extreme thirst and foul breath (probably, because of ketosis). Although the polyuria associated with diabetes was well recognized, ancient clinicians could not distinguish between the polyuria due to what we now call diabetes mellitus from the polyuria due to other conditions.3 Around 230 BC, Apollonius of Memphis for the first time used the term “diabetes,” which in Greek means “to pass through” (dia – through, betes – to go).
    [Show full text]
  • Tight Glycemic Control and Use of Hypoglycemic Medications in Older
    588 Diabetes Care Volume 38, April 2015 Carolyn T. Thorpe,1,2 Walid F. Gellad,1,3 Tight Glycemic Control and Use of Chester B. Good,1,2,3,4 Sijian Zhang,1 Xinhua Zhao,1,4 Maria Mor,1,5 and Hypoglycemic Medications in Michael J. Fine1,3 Older Veterans With Type 2 Diabetes and Comorbid Dementia Diabetes Care 2015;38:588–595 | DOI: 10.2337/dc14-0599 OBJECTIVE Older adults with diabetes and dementia are at increased risk for hypoglycemia and other adverse events associated with tight glycemic control and are unlikely to experience long-term benefits. We examined risk factors for tight glycemic control in this population and use of medications associated with a high risk of hypoglycemia in the subset with tight control. EPIDEMIOLOGY/HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This retrospective cohort study of national Veterans Affairs (VA) administrative/ clinical data and Medicare claims for fiscal years (FYs) 2008–2009 included 15,880 veterans aged ‡65 years with type 2 diabetes and dementia and prescribed antidi- abetic medication. Multivariable regression analyses were used to identify socio- demographic and clinical predictors of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) control (tight, moderate, poor, or not monitored) and, in patients with tight control, subsequent use of medication associated with a high risk of hypoglycemia (sulfonylureas, insulin). RESULTS 1Center for Health Equity Research and Promo- Fifty-two percent of patients had tight glycemic control (HbA1c <7% [53 mmol/mol]). fi tion, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare Sys- Speci c comorbidities, older age, and recent weight loss were associated with tem, Pittsburgh, PA greater odds of tight versus moderate control, whereas Hispanic ethnicity and obe- 2Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, sity were associated with lower odds of tight control.
    [Show full text]
  • Diabetes and Frail Older Patients: Glycemic Control and Prescription Profile in Real Life
    pharmacy Article Diabetes and Frail Older Patients: Glycemic Control and Prescription Profile in Real Life Anne-Sophie Mangé 1, Arnaud Pagès 1,2,3,* , Sandrine Sourdet 4, Philippe Cestac 1,2 and Cécile McCambridge 1 1 Department of Pharmacy, Toulouse University Hospital, UPS Toulouse III Paul Sabatier University, 31000 Toulouse, France; [email protected] (A.-S.M.); [email protected] (P.C.); [email protected] (C.M.) 2 UMR 1027, Inserm, UPS Toulouse III Paul Sabatier University, 31000 Toulouse, France 3 INSPIRE Project, Institute of Aging, Gérontopôle, Toulouse University Hospital, UPS Toulouse III Paul Sabatier University, 31000 Toulouse, France 4 Geriatric Department, Toulouse University Hospital, UPS Toulouse III Paul Sabatier University, 31000 Toulouse, France; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +33-567-776-418 Abstract: (1) Background: The latest recommendations for diabetes management adapt the objectives of glycemic control to the frailty profile in older patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the proportion of older patients with diabetes whose treatment deviates from the recommendations. (2) Methods: This cross-sectional observational study was conducted in older adults with known diabetes who underwent an outpatient frailty assessment in 2016. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) target is between 6% and 7% for nonfrail patients and between 7% and 8% for frail patients. Frailty was evaluated using the Fried criteria. Prescriptions of glucose-lowering drugs were analyzed based on explicit and implicit criteria. (3) Results: Of 110 people with diabetes with an average age of Citation: Mangé, A.-S.; Pagès, A.; 81.7 years, 67.3% were frail.
    [Show full text]
  • Glucose-Responsive Oral Insulin Delivery for Postprandial Glycemic Regulation
    Glucose-responsive oral insulin delivery for postprandial glycemic regulation Jicheng Yu1, Yuqi Zhang1, Jinqiang Wang1,2, Di Wen1,2, Anna R. Kahkoska3, John B. Buse3, and Zhen Gu1,2,3,4 () 1 Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA 2 Department of Bioengineering, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA 3 Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA 4 California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI), Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Center for Minimally Invasive Therapeutics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA © Tsinghua University Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018 Received: 12 October 2018 / Revised: 3 December 2018 / Accepted: 4 December 2018 ABSTRACT Controlling postprandial glucose levels for diabetic patients is critical to achieve the tight glycemic control that decreases the risk for developing long-term micro- and macrovascular complications. Herein, we report a glucose-responsive oral insulin delivery system based on Fc receptor (FcRn)-targeted liposomes with glucose-sensitive hyaluronic acid (HA) shell for postprandial glycemic regulation. After oral administration, the HA shell can quickly detach in the presence of increasing intestinal glucose concentration due to the competitive binding of glucose with the phenylboronic acid groups conjugated with HA. The exposed Fc groups on the surface of liposomes then facilitate enhanced intestinal absorption in an FcRn-mediated transport pathway. In vivo studies on chemically-induced type 1 diabetic mice show this oral glucose-responsive delivery approach can effectively reduce postprandial blood glucose excursions.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimal Glycemic Control in Neurocritical Care Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Andreas H Kramer1,2*, Derek J Roberts1,3,4 and David a Zygun1,2,3
    Kramer et al. Critical Care 2012, 16:R203 http://ccforum.com/content/16/5/R203 RESEARCH Open Access Optimal glycemic control in neurocritical care patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis Andreas H Kramer1,2*, Derek J Roberts1,3,4 and David A Zygun1,2,3 See related commentary by Bilotta and Rosa, http://ccforum.com/content/16/5/163. Abstract Introduction: Hyper- and hypoglycemia are strongly associated with adverse outcomes in critical care. Neurologically injured patients are a unique subgroup, where optimal glycemic targets may differ, such that the findings of clinical trials involving heterogeneous critically ill patients may not apply. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intensive insulin therapy with conventional glycemic control among patients with traumatic brain injury, ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, anoxic encephalopathy, central nervous system infections or spinal cord injury. Results: Sixteen RCTs, involving 1248 neurocritical care patients, were included. Glycemic targets with intensive insulin ranged from 70-140 mg/dl (3.9-7.8 mmol/L), while conventional protocols aimed to keep glucose levels below 144-300 mg/dl (8.0-16.7 mmol/L). Tight glycemic control had no impact on mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.83- 1.17; p = 0.88), but did result in fewer unfavorable neurological outcomes (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84-1.00; p = 0.04). However, improved outcomes were only observed when glucose levels in the conventional glycemic control group were permitted to be relatively high [threshold for insulin administration > 200 mg/dl (> 11.1 mmol/L)], but not with more intermediate glycemic targets [threshold for insulin administration 140-180 mg/dl (7.8-10.0 mmol/L)].
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Perioperative Tight Glycemic Control on Postoperative Outcomes: a Meta-Analysis
    ID: 18-0231 7 12 Z-Q Kang et al. Perioperative tight glycemic 7:12 R316–R327 control REVIEW Effects of perioperative tight glycemic control on postoperative outcomes: a meta-analysis Zhou-Qing Kang1, Jia-Ling Huo2 and Xiao-Jie Zhai1 1Department of Nursing, Jin Qiu Hospital of Liaoning Province, Geriatric Hospital of Liaoning Province, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China 2Department of Respiratory Medicine, Jin Qiu Hospital of Liaoning Province, Geriatric Hospital of Liaoning Province, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China Correspondence should be addressed to Z-Q Kang: [email protected] Abstract Background: The optimal glycemic target during the perioperative period is still Key Words controversial. We aimed to explore the effects of tight glycemic control (TGC) on surgical f tight glycemic control mortality and morbidity. f perioperative Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched from January 1, 1946 to f surgical mortality February 28, 2018. Appropriate trails comparing the postoperative outcomes (mortality, f surgical morbidity hypoglycemic events, acute kidney injury, etc.) between different levels of TGC and liberal glycemic control were identified. Quality assessments were performed with the Jadad scale combined with the allocation concealment evaluation. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were calculated using random effects models. Heterogeneity was detected by the I2 test. Results: Twenty-six trials involving a total of 9315 patients were included in the final analysis. The overall mortality did not differ between tight and liberal glycemic control (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.78–1.07; I2 = 20.1%). Among subgroup analyses, obvious decreased risks of mortality were found in the short-term mortality, non-diabetic conditions, cardiac surgery conditions and compared to the very liberal glycemic target.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Improvement Efforts on Glycemic Control and Hypoglycemia at a University Medical Center
    ORIGINAL RESEARCH Impact of Improvement Efforts on Glycemic Control and Hypoglycemia at a University Medical Center 1 1 Kathie L. Hermayer, MD Department of Medicine/Endocrinology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 2 Patrick Cawley, MD 2 3 Department of Hospital Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. Pamela Arnold, MSN 1 3 Angela Sutton, MD Center for Clinical Effectiveness and Patient Safety, Medical University of South Carolina, 4 John Crudup, BS Charleston, South Carolina. 3 Lisa Kozlowski, MS 4 School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina. 3 Timothy V. Hushion, BA 5 5 Department of Pharmacy Services, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. Maureen L. Sheakley, PharmD 6 Juanita A. Epps, MS 6 Laboratory Services, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 3 Rebecca P. Weil, MSN 7 7 Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Epidemiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Rickey E. Carter, PhD Charleston, South Carolina. Kathie L. Hermayer is on the Speaker’s Bureau for Sanofi Aventis, Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Hermayer is participating in an American Diabetes Grant on Intravenous Insulin Use in Diabetes and Renal Transplantation. BACKGROUND: Great emphasis is placed on optimizing treatment of hospitalized patients with diabetes and hyperglycemia. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to determine if the application of hospital-wide insulin order sets improved inpatient safety by reducing the number of actual hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events and increasing at-target blood glucose. DESIGN: A retrospective chart review was conducted of hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events and at-target blood glucose occurring before and after institution of the insulin order sets and blood glucose protocols.
    [Show full text]