|
|
||||||||
Perspectives |
1 Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; 2 University of Virginia Health System, Department of Pathology, Charlottesville, VA; 3 Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Womens Hospital, Boston, MA.
aAddress correspondence to this author at: Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110. Fax 314-362-1461; e-mail mscott@labmed.wustl.edu.
| The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below. |
Many institutions use tight glycemic control (TGC)1 protocols in their intensive care units (ICUs). TGC protocols became standard of care after the initial, very promising, studies demonstrating that it improved patient outcomes (1). For instance, Van den Berghe et al. (1) demonstrated that TGC reduced mortality by one-third in surgical intensive care patients. Other early studies of TGC also demonstrated marked and significant benefits in infection rates and mortality. Typical TGC protocols consist of placing postoperative and critically ill patients on a continuous intravenous insulin infusion, checking their blood glucose concentrations on an hourly basis (or other schedule), and giving a bolus of insulin and/or changing the infusion rate of insulin based on the glucose concentration, with a goal of maintaining glucose between 4.4 and 6.7 mmol/L (80 and 120 mg/dL). Of the numerous variations in protocols regarding timing and frequency of glucose measurements, insulin infusion rates, and target glucose values, all have a goal of maintaining tight glycemic control in critically ill patients.
A new metaanalysis has suggested that TGC protocols offer limited if any benefits in critically ill adults and revealed that these protocols resulted in a 3- to 5-fold increased risk of hypoglycemia (2). The metaanalysis examined 29 randomized controlled trials that met predefined inclusion criteria. Of the 27 trials that examined mortality as an endpoint, 16 favored TGC and 11 favored usual care, but the reductions in relative risk were statistically significant (95% confidence) in only 2 of the 16 favoring TGC and in none of the 11 favoring usual care. The only outcome for which TGC demonstrated a significantly reduced risk was the development of septicemia; this was seen in surgical intensive care patients but not in medical ICU
The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:
![]() |
G. Van den Berghe, M. Schetz, D. Vlasselaers, G. Hermans, A. Wilmer, R. Bouillon, and D. Mesotten Intensive Insulin Therapy in Critically Ill Patients: NICE-SUGAR or Leuven Blood Glucose Target? J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., September 1, 2009; 94(9): 3163 - 3170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Van den Berghe, R. Bouillon, D. Mesotten, S. S. Braithwaite, J. Pei, D. Yi, T. K. Khoo, K. A. Olsen, K. Mohammedi, R. Roussel, et al. Glucose control in critically ill patients. N. Engl. J. Med., July 2, 2009; 361(1): 89 - 90. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. S. Moghissi, M. T. Korytkowski, M. DiNardo, D. Einhorn, R. Hellman, I. B. Hirsch, S. E. Inzucchi, F. Ismail-Beigi, M. S. Kirkman, and G. E. Umpierrez American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American Diabetes Association Consensus Statement on Inpatient Glycemic Control Diabetes Care, June 1, 2009; 32(6): 1119 - 1131. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. E.G. Griesdale, R. J. de Souza, R. M. van Dam, D. K. Heyland, D. J. Cook, A. Malhotra, R. Dhaliwal, W. R. Henderson, D. R. Chittock, S. Finfer, et al. Intensive insulin therapy and mortality among critically ill patients: a meta-analysis including NICE-SUGAR study data Can. Med. Assoc. J., April 14, 2009; 180(8): 821 - 827. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Van den Berghe, D. Mesotten, and I. Vanhorebeek Intensive insulin therapy in the intensive care unit Can. Med. Assoc. J., April 14, 2009; 180(8): 799 - 800. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |