强化胰岛素治疗在危重病应激性高血糖中的应用

目的：观察危重患者强化胰岛素治疗后的疗效。方法：58例危重病伴高血糖患者随机分为治疗组（IT组）给予强化胰岛素治疗,血糖控制在4.4-6.1 mmol/L;对照组（CT组）给予常规胰岛素治疗,血糖控制在9.0-11.9mmol/L。结果：IT组中患者使用胰岛素天数、抗生素天数、住ICU天数、院内感染发生率、病死率均明显低于CT组。结论：强化胰岛素治疗控制危重患者血糖能降低患者的病死率。     

危重颅脑疾病患者胰岛素强化治疗高血糖与预后

研究表明脑外伤，脑血管意外等危重颅脑疾病患者可因应激而出现高血糖及胰岛素抵抗，血糖升高的过程与其感染发生率，致残程度发生存时间密切相关，近年来，因外学者开始用胰岛素强化治疗用于高血糖危重患者的抢救，胰岛素强化治疗是一种使用胰岛素等降低血糖，并使血糖控制在接近正常水平的治疗方法，本研究采用前瞻、随机、对照方法旨在了解强化胰岛素治疗是否可降低危重颅脑疾病患者的并发症发生率及病死率。     

短期胰岛素强化治疗危重症应激性高血糖的临床观察

目的:探讨短期胰岛素强化控制应激性高血糖对危重症临床疗效及预后的影响.方法:将172例合并应激性高血糖危重病患者随机分成胰岛素强化治疗组(治疗组)与常规胰岛素治疗组(对照组),对照组当血糖11.9 mmol/L时,使用胰岛素将血糖控制在10～11.1 mmol/L;治疗组当血糖6.1 mmol/L,使用胰岛素将血糖控制在4.0～6.1 mmol/L.强化治疗期为7天,7天后血糖控制及其处理均同对照组.结果:治疗组院感发生率、MODS发生率、死亡率较对照组明显降低;ICU住院时间较对照组明显缩短.结论:短期胰岛素强化治疗能有效提高危重症的治愈率,减少危重症并发症的发生,降低危重症的死亡率,并能缩短ICU住院时间,降低医疗费用.     

危重病强化胰岛素治疗分析

在危重病抢救治疗中,高血糖能增加危重症预后不良的风险,严重影响危重病患者的抢救成功率,所以胰岛素强化治疗开始用于高血糖危重病患者的抢救。本文对144例ICU内危重患者进行随机对照研究,以观察胰岛素强化治疗能否改善患者的预后。     

老年危重病患者应激性高血糖的强化胰岛素治疗

目的探讨早期强化胰岛素治疗老年危重病患者应激性高血糖的临床疗效。方法70例发生应激性高血糖(血糖持续>12mmol/L)的老年(>65岁)危重病患者,APACHEⅡ评分平均为(17.2±3.8)分,随机分为强化胰岛素治疗组与常规胰岛素治疗组各35例。强化组血糖控制在4.4～7.8mmol/L;常规组血糖控制在10.0～12.0mmol/L,两组其余临床治疗相同。监测血清C反应蛋白水平变化、泵入胰岛素天数、入住ICU天数、院内感染发生率、需要血液净化治疗的急性肾衰竭的发生率、病死率等指标。结果强化组老年危重病患者的C反应蛋白水平、泵入胰岛素天数、住ICU天数、院内感染发生率、需要血液净化治疗的急性肾衰竭的发生率、死亡率显著降低,与常规组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05或<0.01)。结论对于发生应激性高血糖的老年危重病患者,早期强化胰岛素治疗能更有效、更及时地控制血糖,并显著改善临床疗效。     

微量泵静滴胰岛素控制危重患者高血糖的临床观察

通过微量泵静滴胰岛素控制危重患者高血糖以提高此类患者的存活率。方法 :本文 62例合并高血糖的危重患者均用微量泵静滴胰岛素控制血糖 ,并与 62例血糖正常的危重患者比较。结果 :危重患者的高血糖经微量泵静滴胰岛素均能控制 ,其存活率与血糖正常的危重患者比较无显著性差异 ( P >0 0 5 )。结论 :微量泵控制静滴胰岛素能使高血糖平稳降到目标值 ,有利于此类患者的营养支持及其他治疗性药物的应用。胰岛素用量遵循小剂量原则。     

微量泵静滴胰岛素控制危重患者高血糖的临床观察

目的：通过微量泵静滴胰岛素控制危重患者高血糖以提高此类患者的存活率。方法：本文６２例合并高血糖的危重患者均用微量泵静脉胰岛素控制血糖，并与６２例血糖正常的危重患者比较。结果：危重患者的高血糖经微量泵静滴胰岛素均能控制，其存活率与血糖正常的危重患者比较无显著性差异（Ｐ〉０．０５）。结论：微量泵控制静滴胰岛素能使高血糖平稳降到目标值，有利于此类患者的营养支持及其他治疗性药物的应用。胰岛素用量遵循小剂量     

高血糖危重患者抢救中的胰岛素强化治疗

在危重患者的抢救中经常见到血糖升高的患者,而高血糖严重影响危重患者的抢救成功率。为了消除高血糖对危重患者抢救成功率的影响,最近,在国外胰岛素强化治疗开始用于高血糖危重患者的抢救,现综述如下。1　胰岛素强化治疗的概念胰岛素强化治疗即胰岛素强化治疗方法,是在1993年6月世界卫生组织(WHO)公布的北美“糖尿病控制与并发症试验(DCCT)”的报告中首次提出的。DCCT的目的是比较胰岛素强化治疗和胰岛素常规治疗与糖尿病并发症的关系。胰岛素强化治疗的概念是针对胰岛素常规治疗而提出的,在传统的常规治疗中,医护人员已习惯把患者的…     

100例危重患者强化胰岛素治疗的监测及护理

目的探讨危重患者强化胰岛素治疗的血糖监测及护理。方法对100例中心重症监护室（ICU）的高血糖危重患者按强化胰岛素治疗方案控制血糖。结果100例患者血糖控制效果满意,其中6例患者发生低血糖反应,22例患者因原发病情恶化死亡。结论该强化胰岛素治疗方案实用、简便易行,治疗时加强微量泵的应用管理、准确无误的胰岛素配制、严密的血糖监测和患者及护士应用的依从性是保证强化胰岛素治疗有效实施的关键。     

危重病患者应激性高血糖的胰岛素强化治疗

目的:观察ICU危重病患者应激性高血糖胰岛素强化治疗的临床疗效.方法:110例ICU病房的危重病患者随机分为胰岛素强化治疗组(n=55)和对照组(n=55),强化治疗组血糖控制在4.4～6.1 mmol/L,对照组血糖控制在10.0～11.1 mmol/L,观察两组患者ICU住院天数、需机械通气例数、机械通气天数、院内感染发生率、抗生素应用天数、ICU最后1 d APACHEⅡ评分、低血糖发生率、多器官功能衰竭发生率、病死率等.结果:治疗组ICU住院天数、需机械通气例数,机械通气天数、院内感染发生率、抗生素应用天数、ICU最后1 d APACHEⅡ评分、多器官功能衰竭发生率、病死率均明显低于对照组(P<0.05或P<0.01),低血糖发生率则高于对照组(P<0.05).结论:危重病患者应激性高血糖胰岛素强化治疗,控制血糖在4.4～6.1 mmol/L水平,可改善临床疗效、降低病死率.     

危重病患者抢救中胰岛素强化治疗的探讨

目的观察胰岛素强化治疗能否改善重症监护室（ICU）危重患者的预后。方法将116例危重患者随机分为传统治疗组（CT组）和胰岛素强化治疗组（IT组），每4h监测1次床旁血糖。当CT组血糖＞11．9mmol／L时，皮下注射中性可溶性胰岛素控制血糖在10．0～11．1mmol／L；当IT组血糖＞6．1mmol／L时，皮下注射胰岛素控制血糖在4．4～6．1mmol／L。记录患者ICU住院时间、使用呼吸机时间、气管插管或气管套管留置时间、每日早6时平均血糖、每日提供的平均热量、每日胰岛素用量、每日简化治疗干预评分系统-28（TISS-28）评分、人白细胞DR抗原（HLA—DR）、CD4^＋／CD8^＋，死亡、低血糖、肾功能损害（血肌酐＞221／μmol／L）和高胆红素血症（总胆红素＞34．2μmol／L）、输红细胞及发热（口温＞38．5℃）例数。结果CT组病死率（44．83％）远远高于IT组（12．07％），差异有显著性（P＜O．01）；患者ICU住院时间、使用呼吸机时间、气管插管留置时间、每日早6时平均血糖、每日TISS-28评分均明显高于IT组（P＜0．05或P＜0．01）；每日胰岛素用量、HLADR、CD4^＋／CD8^＋均明显低于IT组（P＜0．05或P＜0．01）。两组并发症比较，CT组患者发生肾功能损害、输注红细胞及发热例数均明显高于IT组（P均＜0．01）。结论胰岛素强化治疗控制危重患者血糖在4．4～6．1mmol／L水平确能降低患者的病死率。     

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.     

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。     

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.     

强化胰岛素治疗危重病患者40例

目的观察强化胰岛素治疗在危重病患者中的临床疗效。方法80例危重病患者随机分为两组,治疗组（40例）给予强化胰岛素治疗,使血糖维持在4．4—6．1mmol／L;对照组（40例）给予常规胰岛素治疗,使血糖控制在10．0—11．1mmol／L。观察两组患者使用抗生素的天数、使用呼吸机的天数、血透发生率、院内感染发生率及病死率。结果治疗组中使用抗生素天数（15±5）d,使用呼吸机天数（6±4）d,需行血透6例（15．0％）,院内感染6例（15．0％）,病死率17．5％,均明显低于对照组,P〈0．05,差异有统计学意义。结论对于危重病患者,当出现应激性高血糖时,强化胰岛素治疗可改善危重病患者的预后,降低其病死率。     

Hyperglycemia in the critically ill patient

Hyperglycemia and insulin resistance are common among critically ill patients and occur in patients with or without a history of diabetes mellitus. All patients undergoing critical illness are at risk for stress-induced hyperglycemia. Some patients may be at greater risk for hyperglycemia than others when considering underlying disease states and iatrogenic factors. Many recent studies demonstrate that tight glucose control can decrease morbidity and mortality associated with critical illness. This article reviews the pathophysiology behind stress-induced hyperglycemia, the evidence to support tight glycemic control, and the importance of an intensive insulin therapy protocol to standardize treatment among critical care patients.     

How low should you go? The limbo of glycemic control in intensive care units

Hyperglycemia, a common finding in critically ill patients, is linked to poor outcomes in multiple conditions. The Leuven I study published in 2001 was the first evaluation of intensive insulin therapy, and the 3.4% absolute reduction in mortality in a single-center surgical intensive care unit led to widespread endorsement of the therapy. In a subsequent study in a medical intensive care unit, reduction in mortality was not significant. Two multicenter studies were stopped early because of significantly higher rates of hypoglycemia in the patients receiving intensive insulin therapy. The episodes of hypoglycemia were linked to increased mortality. In the largest prospective study conducted to date, mortality was significantly higher (P = .02) in patients who had intensive therapy (27.5%) than in control patients (24.9%). Thus, after years of research, intensive insulin therapy does not appear to convey the original benefit in all critically ill patients. Several organizations have proposed alternative blood glucose targets, such as 140 to 180 mg/dL, to both provide glycemic control and reduce the opportunity for hypoglycemic episodes.     

危重病人强化胰岛素治疗的临床护理研究

目的：探讨强化胰岛素治疗危重病人对预后的影响,并分析相关护理问题。方法：采用前瞻性研究方法,将320例危重病人随机分为观察组和对照组,观察组160例给予强化胰岛素治疗,维持危重病人血糖在4．4—6．1mmol／L;对照组按常规控制在血糖10．0～11．7mmol／L,每2h进行血糖监测和分析。观察指标用SPSS10．0进行统计分析。结果：两组危重病人使用胰岛索天数、机械通气时间、院内感染发生率、死亡率、ICU住院天数经统计学处理无显著差异（P〉0．05）,低血糖发生率及危重病人压疮愈合情况两组有统计学差异（P〈0．05）。结论：危重病人强化胰岛素治疗并不能降低病死率,反而增加低血糖反应的发生率。结合其他近期研究的阴性结论,该疗法还不成熟,危重病人实施强化胰岛素治疗还需进一步深入研究。     

Intravenous insulin nomogram improves blood glucose control in the critically ill

OBJECTIVE: To improve control of blood glucose concentrations in critically ill patients through use of a bedside, nurse-managed, intravenous insulin nomogram. DESIGN: Retrospective, before-after cohort study. SETTING: Fifteen-bed mixed medical/surgical intensive care unit in a tertiary, teaching hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 167 intensive care unit patients requiring intravenous insulin infusions during two 9-month periods. INTERVENTION: The sliding scale group was treated using ad hoc sliding scale infusion therapy. The intervention group was treated using a dosing nomogram that allowed the nurse to adjust the insulin infusion rate based on current glucose concentration and concurrent insulin infusion rates. The adjustments were made independent of physician input. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Time from initiating the insulin infusion to initial control of glucose concentration (<11.5 mmol/L) was determined. Effectiveness of glucose control was determined retrospectively by measuring the area under the curve of blood concentrations >11.5 mmol/L versus time of insulin infusion, divided by total duration of insulin infusion. The median time to initial control of glucose (<11.5 mmol/L) was 4 hr (range 1-38 hr) for the baseline and 2 hr (range 1-22 hr) for nomogram group (p =.0004). The median area under the curve of glucose concentration divided by duration of insulin infusion was 0.9 (range 0.0-5.9) for sliding scale group and 0.3 (range 0.0-11.1) for nomogram (p =.0001), without any increase in the frequency of episodes of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: Use of an insulin nomogram in critically ill patients improves control of blood glucose concentrations and is safe.     

Safety and efficacy of an intensive insulin protocol in a burn-trauma intensive care unit.

Aggressive glycemic management in critically ill patients with acute burn injury or life-threatening soft-tissue infections has not been thoroughly evaluated. An intensive insulin protocol with target glucose values of less than 120 mg/dl was implemented in October 2005 in our regional Burn-Trauma intensive care unit. We reviewed our initial experience with this protocol to evaluate the safety and efficacy of aggressive glycemic control in these patient groups. Patients were placed on the intensive insulin protocol based upon the need for glycemic management during their hospitalization for burn or soft-tissue disease. Patient information prospectively collected while on protocol included all measured blood glucose values, total daily insulin use, and incidence of hypoglycemic episodes, defined as serum glucose <60 mg/dl. Thirty patients (17 burns, 13 soft-tissue infections) were placed on the intensive insulin protocol during the first 16 months of use. The mean daily blood glucose level for burn patients was 115.9 mg/dl and for soft-tissue disease patients was 119.5 mg/dl. There was a 5% incidence of hypoglycemic episodes per protocol day. All hypoglycemic episodes were treated by holding the insulin infusion, and no episode had known adverse effects. Hyperglycemia in critically ill patients with burns and extensive soft-tissue disease can be effectively managed with an insulin protocol that targets blood glucose values of less than 120 mg/dl with minimal incidence of hypoglycemia. A multicenter prospective randomized trial would provide the ideal forum for evaluating clinical outcome benefits of using an intensive insulin protocol.