The importance of normoglycemia in critically ill patients

Hyperglycemia is a risk factor for adverse outcomes in acutely ill patients with and without diabetes. One third of all patients admitted to tertiary care facilities have hyperglycemia, with approximately 12% having had no prior history of diabetes. Hyperglycemia adversely affects fluid balance, predisposes to infection, morbidity following acute cardiovascular events, and increases the risk for renal failure, polyneuropathy, and mortality in ICU patients. Because traditional thought suggests hypoglycemia presents a more serious risk to critically ill patients than does hyperglycemia, clinicians are often less than aggressive in treating blood glucoses under 200 mg/dl. Current research, however, demonstrates that even modest degrees of hyperglycemia are associated with adverse outcomes in critically ill patients. Safe implementation of normoglycemia in intensive care patients can be labor intensive and requires well-formulated treatment strategies and interdisciplinary support. Therefore, understanding the importance of intensive glucose control, being comfortable with current clinical treatment modalities, and having the necessary resources to provide this type of care, are vital to critical care nursing practice today.     

危重症病人应激性高血糖短期胰岛素强化治疗的临床护理

目的:探讨短期胰岛素强化治疗对危重病人预后的影响,并分析相关护理问题。方法:选择入住ICU、既往无糖尿病史的危重病人108例,随机分为治疗组和对照组各54例。治疗组给予7 d的短期强化胰岛素治疗,随后给予常规的血糖控制;对照组则一直给予常规的血糖控制。强化胰岛素治疗控制血糖在4.4～8.3 mmol/L,常规血糖控制在4.4～11.1 mmol/L。结果:治疗组ICU住院时间、机械通气天数、院内感染发生率、多器官功能障碍综合征(MODS)发生率及病死率均明显低于对照组(P<0.05),两组低血糖的发生率差异比较无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:短期胰岛素强化治疗能有效控制重症病人的应激性高血糖,改善预后,实施过程中要做好病人血糖动态监测工作,减少低血糖的发生率。     

强化胰岛素治疗对重症监护患者病死率影响的Meta分析

目的 系统评价强化胰岛素治疗(IIT)对重症监护病房(ICU)患者病死率的影响.方法 计算机全面检索收集1966-2009年发表的关于IIT对ICU患者病死率影响的随机对照临床试验文献,并严格评价符合纳入文献的质量,用RevMan 5.0软件进行数据分析.结果 最终纳入23个研究,共11 216例患者.Meta分析结果 显示:IIT方案可有效降低重症监护患者的病死率(包括内科ICU、外科ICU及综合ICU中的病死率),降低患者在ICU期间的感染率和并发症发生率,也可以使目标血糖达到最佳范围,但IIT组低血糖发生率略高于传统胰岛素治疗(CIT)组.结论 IIT治疗方案比CIT治疗方案能明显降低ICU患者的病死率、感染率及并发症发生率,使目标血糖阈值达到期望的范围内,从而提高了患者生存质量;然而在低血糖的控制方面IIT方案不及CIT方案.     

强化胰岛素治疗对重症监护患者病死率影响的Meta分析

目的 系统评价强化胰岛素治疗(IIT)对重症监护病房(ICU)患者病死率的影响.方法 计算机全面检索收集1966-2009年发表的关于IIT对ICU患者病死率影响的随机对照临床试验文献,并严格评价符合纳入文献的质量,用RevMan 5.0软件进行数据分析.结果 最终纳入23个研究,共11 216例患者.Meta分析结果 显示:IIT方案可有效降低重症监护患者的病死率(包括内科ICU、外科ICU及综合ICU中的病死率),降低患者在ICU期间的感染率和并发症发生率,也可以使目标血糖达到最佳范围,但IIT组低血糖发生率略高于传统胰岛素治疗(CIT)组.结论 IIT治疗方案比CIT治疗方案能明显降低ICU患者的病死率、感染率及并发症发生率,使目标血糖阈值达到期望的范围内,从而提高了患者生存质量;然而在低血糖的控制方面IIT方案不及CIT方案.     

强化胰岛素治疗对重症监护患者病死率影响的Meta分析

目的 系统评价强化胰岛素治疗(IIT)对重症监护病房(ICU)患者病死率的影响.方法 计算机全面检索收集1966-2009年发表的关于IIT对ICU患者病死率影响的随机对照临床试验文献,并严格评价符合纳入文献的质量,用RevMan 5.0软件进行数据分析.结果 最终纳入23个研究,共11 216例患者.Meta分析结果 显示:IIT方案可有效降低重症监护患者的病死率(包括内科ICU、外科ICU及综合ICU中的病死率),降低患者在ICU期间的感染率和并发症发生率,也可以使目标血糖达到最佳范围,但IIT组低血糖发生率略高于传统胰岛素治疗(CIT)组.结论 IIT治疗方案比CIT治疗方案能明显降低ICU患者的病死率、感染率及并发症发生率,使目标血糖阈值达到期望的范围内,从而提高了患者生存质量;然而在低血糖的控制方面IIT方案不及CIT方案.     

强化胰岛素治疗对重症监护患者病死率影响的Meta分析

目的 系统评价强化胰岛素治疗(IIT)对重症监护病房(ICU)患者病死率的影响.方法 计算机全面检索收集1966-2009年发表的关于IIT对ICU患者病死率影响的随机对照临床试验文献,并严格评价符合纳入文献的质量,用RevMan 5.0软件进行数据分析.结果 最终纳入23个研究,共11 216例患者.Meta分析结果 显示:IIT方案可有效降低重症监护患者的病死率(包括内科ICU、外科ICU及综合ICU中的病死率),降低患者在ICU期间的感染率和并发症发生率,也可以使目标血糖达到最佳范围,但IIT组低血糖发生率略高于传统胰岛素治疗(CIT)组.结论 IIT治疗方案比CIT治疗方案能明显降低ICU患者的病死率、感染率及并发症发生率,使目标血糖阈值达到期望的范围内,从而提高了患者生存质量;然而在低血糖的控制方面IIT方案不及CIT方案.     

强化胰岛素治疗对重症监护患者病死率影响的Meta分析

目的 系统评价强化胰岛素治疗(IIT)对重症监护病房(ICU)患者病死率的影响.方法 计算机全面检索收集1966-2009年发表的关于IIT对ICU患者病死率影响的随机对照临床试验文献,并严格评价符合纳入文献的质量,用RevMan 5.0软件进行数据分析.结果 最终纳入23个研究,共11 216例患者.Meta分析结果 显示:IIT方案可有效降低重症监护患者的病死率(包括内科ICU、外科ICU及综合ICU中的病死率),降低患者在ICU期间的感染率和并发症发生率,也可以使目标血糖达到最佳范围,但IIT组低血糖发生率略高于传统胰岛素治疗(CIT)组.结论 IIT治疗方案比CIT治疗方案能明显降低ICU患者的病死率、感染率及并发症发生率,使目标血糖阈值达到期望的范围内,从而提高了患者生存质量;然而在低血糖的控制方面IIT方案不及CIT方案.     

强化胰岛素治疗对重症监护患者病死率影响的Meta分析

目的 系统评价强化胰岛素治疗(IIT)对重症监护病房(ICU)患者病死率的影响.方法 计算机全面检索收集1966-2009年发表的关于IIT对ICU患者病死率影响的随机对照临床试验文献,并严格评价符合纳入文献的质量,用RevMan 5.0软件进行数据分析.结果 最终纳入23个研究,共11 216例患者.Meta分析结果 显示:IIT方案可有效降低重症监护患者的病死率(包括内科ICU、外科ICU及综合ICU中的病死率),降低患者在ICU期间的感染率和并发症发生率,也可以使目标血糖达到最佳范围,但IIT组低血糖发生率略高于传统胰岛素治疗(CIT)组.结论 IIT治疗方案比CIT治疗方案能明显降低ICU患者的病死率、感染率及并发症发生率,使目标血糖阈值达到期望的范围内,从而提高了患者生存质量;然而在低血糖的控制方面IIT方案不及CIT方案.     

强化胰岛素治疗对重症监护患者病死率影响的Meta分析

目的 系统评价强化胰岛素治疗(IIT)对重症监护病房(ICU)患者病死率的影响.方法 计算机全面检索收集1966-2009年发表的关于IIT对ICU患者病死率影响的随机对照临床试验文献,并严格评价符合纳入文献的质量,用RevMan 5.0软件进行数据分析.结果 最终纳入23个研究,共11 216例患者.Meta分析结果 显示:IIT方案可有效降低重症监护患者的病死率(包括内科ICU、外科ICU及综合ICU中的病死率),降低患者在ICU期间的感染率和并发症发生率,也可以使目标血糖达到最佳范围,但IIT组低血糖发生率略高于传统胰岛素治疗(CIT)组.结论 IIT治疗方案比CIT治疗方案能明显降低ICU患者的病死率、感染率及并发症发生率,使目标血糖阈值达到期望的范围内,从而提高了患者生存质量;然而在低血糖的控制方面IIT方案不及CIT方案.     

强化胰岛素治疗对重症监护患者病死率影响的Meta分析

目的 系统评价强化胰岛素治疗(IIT)对重症监护病房(ICU)患者病死率的影响.方法 计算机全面检索收集1966-2009年发表的关于IIT对ICU患者病死率影响的随机对照临床试验文献,并严格评价符合纳入文献的质量,用RevMan 5.0软件进行数据分析.结果 最终纳入23个研究,共11 216例患者.Meta分析结果 显示:IIT方案可有效降低重症监护患者的病死率(包括内科ICU、外科ICU及综合ICU中的病死率),降低患者在ICU期间的感染率和并发症发生率,也可以使目标血糖达到最佳范围,但IIT组低血糖发生率略高于传统胰岛素治疗(CIT)组.结论 IIT治疗方案比CIT治疗方案能明显降低ICU患者的病死率、感染率及并发症发生率,使目标血糖阈值达到期望的范围内,从而提高了患者生存质量;然而在低血糖的控制方面IIT方案不及CIT方案.     

强化胰岛素治疗对重症监护患者病死率影响的Meta分析

目的 系统评价强化胰岛素治疗(IIT)对重症监护病房(ICU)患者病死率的影响.方法 计算机全面检索收集1966-2009年发表的关于IIT对ICU患者病死率影响的随机对照临床试验文献,并严格评价符合纳入文献的质量,用RevMan 5.0软件进行数据分析.结果 最终纳入23个研究,共11 216例患者.Meta分析结果 显示:IIT方案可有效降低重症监护患者的病死率(包括内科ICU、外科ICU及综合ICU中的病死率),降低患者在ICU期间的感染率和并发症发生率,也可以使目标血糖达到最佳范围,但IIT组低血糖发生率略高于传统胰岛素治疗(CIT)组.结论 IIT治疗方案比CIT治疗方案能明显降低ICU患者的病死率、感染率及并发症发生率,使目标血糖阈值达到期望的范围内,从而提高了患者生存质量;然而在低血糖的控制方面IIT方案不及CIT方案.     

强化胰岛素治疗对重症监护患者病死率影响的Meta分析

目的 系统评价强化胰岛素治疗(IIT)对重症监护病房(ICU)患者病死率的影响.方法 计算机全面检索收集1966-2009年发表的关于IIT对ICU患者病死率影响的随机对照临床试验文献,并严格评价符合纳入文献的质量,用RevMan 5.0软件进行数据分析.结果 最终纳入23个研究,共11 216例患者.Meta分析结果 显示:IIT方案可有效降低重症监护患者的病死率(包括内科ICU、外科ICU及综合ICU中的病死率),降低患者在ICU期间的感染率和并发症发生率,也可以使目标血糖达到最佳范围,但IIT组低血糖发生率略高于传统胰岛素治疗(CIT)组.结论 IIT治疗方案比CIT治疗方案能明显降低ICU患者的病死率、感染率及并发症发生率,使目标血糖阈值达到期望的范围内,从而提高了患者生存质量;然而在低血糖的控制方面IIT方案不及CIT方案.     

强化胰岛素治疗对重症监护患者病死率影响的Meta分析

目的 系统评价强化胰岛素治疗(IIT)对重症监护病房(ICU)患者病死率的影响.方法 计算机全面检索收集1966-2009年发表的关于IIT对ICU患者病死率影响的随机对照临床试验文献,并严格评价符合纳入文献的质量,用RevMan 5.0软件进行数据分析.结果 最终纳入23个研究,共11 216例患者.Meta分析结果 显示:IIT方案可有效降低重症监护患者的病死率(包括内科ICU、外科ICU及综合ICU中的病死率),降低患者在ICU期间的感染率和并发症发生率,也可以使目标血糖达到最佳范围,但IIT组低血糖发生率略高于传统胰岛素治疗(CIT)组.结论 IIT治疗方案比CIT治疗方案能明显降低ICU患者的病死率、感染率及并发症发生率,使目标血糖阈值达到期望的范围内,从而提高了患者生存质量;然而在低血糖的控制方面IIT方案不及CIT方案.     

分层血糖控制对肺部感染并发呼吸衰竭急危重患者预后的影响

目的观察胰岛素泵强化血糖控制对肺部感染并发呼吸衰竭急危重病人预后的影响。方法选择入住急诊重症监护室（EICU）的ApacheⅡ评分〉15分、同时合并高血糖（随机血糖〉11．1mmol／L）的内科危重病人200例,随机分为强化胰岛素治疗（IIT）组和常规治疗（CIT）组（胰岛素泵血糖控制）,其中IIT组和CIT组各包含肺部感染引起的呼吸衰竭31例和33例,观察2组患者呼吸机、抗生素使用天数,近期死亡率（28d内）、入院3d及7d后的APACHEⅡ评分、低血糖发生率,院内感染发生率、住院天数、住院费用等指标。结果IIT和CIT2组年龄、性别构成比、血氧饱和度、氧分压、二氧化碳分压、pH值、血压、呼吸衰竭类型、血糖、炎症指标、电解质、心功能、肝肾功能、空腹C肽、HbA1c、APACHEⅡ评分等指标比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,具有可比性。IIT组院内感染发生率、3d及7d后的APACHEⅡ评分、死亡率、住院天数、呼吸机、抗生素使用天数、住院费用低于CIT组（P〈0．05）;IIT组低血糖发生次数明显高于CIT组（P〈0．01）,但2组严重低血糖发生次数差异无统计学意义（P〉0．0S）。结论严格强化血糖控制对肺部感染并发呼吸衰竭急危重患者可能带来较多益处,并降低近期死亡率。     

Glycemic control in critically ill patients

Hyperglycemia is common in critically ill patients and can be caused by various mechanisms, including nutrition, medications, and insufficient insulin. In the past, hyperglycemia was thought to be an adaptive response to stress, but hyperglycemia is no longer considered a benign condition in patients with critical illnesses. Indeed, hyperglycemia can increase morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Correction of hyperglycemia may improve clinical outcomes. To date, a definite answer with regard to glucose management in general intensive care unit patients, including treatment thresholds and glucose target is undetermined. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials suggested no survival benefit of tight glycemic control and a significantly increased incidence of hypoglycemia. Studies have shown a J- or U-shaped relationship between average glucose values and mortality; maintaining glucose levels between 100 and 150 mg/dL was likely to be associated with the lowest mortality rates. Recent studies have shown glycemic control < 180 mg/dL is not inferior to near-normal glycemia in critically ill patients and is clearly safer. Glycemic variability is also an important aspect of glucose management in the critically ill patients. Higher glycemic variability may increase the mortality rate, even in patients with the same mean glucose level. Decreasing glucose variability is an important issue for glycemic control in critically ill patients. Continuous measurements with automatic closed-loop systems could be considered to ensure that blood glucose levels are controlled within a specific range and with minimal variability.     

Intensive insulin therapy for acute hyperglycemia

There is growing evidence that control of hyperglycemia in the critically ill patient improves outcome. Normalizing blood glucose levels decreases the risk of developing sepsis, end-organ damage, and hospital mortality. Critical care clinicians must be familiar with current and benchmark research supporting control of hyperglycemia and use this knowledge to ensure appropriate application of evidence-based practice for decreasing or preventing complications in the critically ill patient. This article describes the effects of hyperglycemia and discusses the evidence supporting tight glycemic control in such patients. The necessary steps to implement an intensive insulin therapy protocol for control of acute hyperglycemia are detailed.     

Clinical challenges of glycemic control in the intensive care unit: A narrative review

Glucose control in patient admitted to the intensive care unit has been a topic of much debate over the past 20 years. The harmful effects of uncontrolled hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia in critically ill patients is well established. Although a large clinical trial in 2001 demonstrated significant mortality and morbidity benefits with tight glucose control in this patient population, the results could not be replicated by other investigators. The “Normoglycemia in Intensive Care Evaluation-Survival Using Glucose Algorithm Regulation” trial in 2009 established that tight glucose control was not only of no benefit, but in fact harmful due to the significant risk of hypoglycemia. The current guidelines suggest a moderate approach with the initiation of intravenous insulin therapy in critically ill patients when the blood glucose level is above 180 mg/dL. The most important factor that underpins glycemic management in intensive care unit patients is the consequent prevention of hypoglycemia. Robust glucose monitoring strategies and insulin protocols need to be implemented in order to achieve this goal.     

Intensive insulin therapy for critically ill patients

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of glycemic control of intensive insulin therapy and recommend its place in the management of critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES: Searches of MEDLINE (1966-March 2004) and Cochrane Library, as well as an extensive manual review of abstracts were performed using the key search terms hyperglycemia, insulin, intensive care unit, critically ill, outcomes, and guidelines and algorithms. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All articles identified from the data sources were evaluated and deemed relevant if they included and assessed clinical outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Mortality among patients with prolonged critical illness exceeds 20%, and most deaths are attributable to sepsis and multisystem organ failure. Hyperglycemia is common in critically ill patients, even in those with no history of diabetes mellitus. Maintaining normoglycemia with insulin in critically ill patients has been shown to improve neurologic, cardiovascular, and infectious outcomes. Most importantly, morbidity and mortality are reduced with aggressive insulin therapy. This information can be implemented into protocols to maintain strict control of glucose. CONCLUSIONS: Use of insulin protocols in critically ill patients improves blood glucose control and reduces morbidity and mortality in critically ill populations. Glucose levels in critically ill patients should be controlled through implementation of insulin protocols with the goal to achieve normoglycemia, regardless of a history of diabetes. Frequent monitoring is imperative to avoid hypoglycemia.     

重症患者应激性高血糖短期胰岛素强化治疗方案的探讨

目的 探讨短期胰岛素强化治疗对重症患者应激性高血糖的调控及临床转归的影响.方法 选择入住ICU既往无糖尿病史的危重患者186例,随机分为4d组、7d组和对照组,每组各62例.分别给予4d、7d的短期强化胰岛素治疗,随后给予常规的血糖控制,对照组则一直给予常规的血糖控制.强化胰岛素治疗控制血糖在4.4～8.3mmol/L,常规血糖控制在4.4～11.1mmol/L.结果 在强化胰岛素治疗停止后第8～14d,4d组、7d组的平均血糖水平明显较对照组低,同期每天胰岛素用量也明显低于对照组(P<0.01);4d组、7d组的ICU住院时间、机械通气天数、院内感染发生率、MODS发生率及病死率均明显低于对照组(P<0.05或P<0.01),而4d组的ICU住院时间、机械通气天数均较7d组高(P<0.05).结论 在危重病人中,采用7d短期胰岛素强化治疗,能有效控制重症患者的应激性高血糖,改善预后,又减少了低血糖的发生率.     

Glycemic variability and glucose complexity in critically ill patients: a retrospective analysis of continuous glucose monitoring data

Introduction

Glycemic variability as a marker of endogenous and exogenous factors, and glucose complexity as a marker of endogenous glucose regulation are independent predictors of mortality in critically ill patients. We evaluated the impact of real time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glycemic variability in critically ill patients on intensive insulin therapy (IIT), and investigated glucose complexity - calculated using detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) - in ICU survivors and non-survivors.

Methods

Retrospective analysis were conducted of two prospective, randomized, controlled trials in which 174 critically ill patients either received IIT according to a real-time CGM system (n = 63) or according to an algorithm (n = 111) guided by selective arterial blood glucose measurements with simultaneously blinded CGM for 72 hours. Standard deviation, glucose lability index and mean daily delta glucose as markers of glycemic variability, as well as glucose complexity and mean glucose were calculated.

Results

Glycemic variability measures were comparable between the real time CGM group (n = 63) and the controls (n = 111). Glucose complexity was significantly lower (higher DFA) in ICU non-survivors (n = 36) compared to survivors (n = 138) (DFA: 1.61 (1.46 to 1.68) versus 1.52 (1.44 to 1.58); P = 0.003). Diabetes mellitus was significantly associated with a loss of complexity (diabetic (n = 33) versus non-diabetic patients (n = 141) (DFA: 1.58 (1.48 to 1.65) versus 1.53 (1.44 to 1.59); P = 0.01).

Conclusions

IIT guided by real time CGM did not result in significantly reduced glycemic variability. Loss of glucose complexity was significantly associated with mortality and with the presence of diabetes mellitus.