强化胰岛素治疗对心脏瓣膜置换患者术后感染的影响

目的观察强化胰岛素治疗对体外循环下非糖尿病性心脏瓣膜置换患者术后感染的影响,总结实施强化胰岛素治疗的护理经验。方法将近期414例瓣膜置换患者作为强化治疗组,在术中即行强化胰岛素治疗,将术中血糖控制于5.0～8.3mmol/L、术后血糖控制于3.9～6.1mmol/L;并以早期325例血糖控制在10.0～11.1mmol/L的常规治疗患者作为对照。对患者术后感染、呼吸机辅助通气时间、术后住院时间等指标进行对比研究。结果两组患者术前情况无统计学差异;强化胰岛素治疗组术后血液感染,呼吸道感染及院内感染率等指标降低,呼吸机辅助通气时间及术后住院时间明显缩短,与常规治疗组相比差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论围术期强化胰岛素治疗可降低非糖尿病心脏瓣膜置换患者术后感染率,改善预后。护士正确执行强化胰岛素治疗方案,准时监测血糖,重视低血糖反应等并发症是成功实施强化胰岛素治疗的关键。     

体外循环心脏手术围手术期血糖控制目标及其对心功能影响的探讨

目的 研究不同血糖控制目标对体外循环心脏手术患者围手术期心功能的影响,探讨心脏手术围手术期合理的血糖目标.方法 选择体外循环心脏手术患者584例,随机分为三组:从手术开始直至术后24 h目标血糖控制于4.4～6.1 mmol/L(即80～110 mg/dl,A组)、7.2～8.3 mmol/L(即130～150 mg/dl,B组)和血糖控制于10.0～11.1 mmol/L的对照组(即180～200 mg/dl,RT组),记录各组患者血糖控制情况,观察对比各组血流动力学指标以及围手术期左心室收缩功能、新发心律失常以及低血糖发生情况.结果 围手术期A组、B组相对于RT组血流动力学更加平稳(P<0.001),左心室收缩功能优于RT组(P<0.001),A组低血糖发生明显高于B组及RT组(P<0.05).结论 心脏手术围手术期强化胰岛素治疗将血糖控制在4.4～6.1 mmol/L、7.2～8.3 mmol/L均有利于术后心脏收缩功能的恢复,但将血控制于≤8.3 mmol/L较≤6.1 mmol/L更加安全.     

短期胰岛素泵治疗对不同病程2型糖尿病患者胰岛β细胞功能的影响

目的观察胰岛素泵强化治疗2周对不同病程2型糖尿病患者胰岛β细胞功能及胰岛素抵抗改善的差异。方法选择不同病程的2型糖尿病患者共90例,根据病程长短分为新诊断糖尿病组（A组）、病程1～5年糖尿病组（B组）、病程5年以上糖尿病组（C组）,各组30例。对3组患者进行2周胰岛素泵强化治疗,以空腹血糖〈6.1 mmol·L-1,餐后2 h血糖〈8.0 mmol·L-1为治疗目标,治疗前后行标准馒头餐试验,检测3组患者空腹及餐后2 h的血糖、胰岛素、C肽,用稳态模型计算治疗前后的胰岛β细胞功能指数（Homa-β）,胰岛素抵抗指数（Homa-IR）。结果 A组和B组治疗后Homaβ-、空腹C肽均较治疗前升高,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）,而C组治疗后Homaβ-、空腹C肽较治疗前亦升高,但差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;A组的Homaβ-治疗前后的差值与B组比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;强化治疗前后各组Homa-IR差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论胰岛素强化治疗能改善病程较短的2型糖尿病患者的胰岛β细胞功能,新诊断的2型糖尿病患者获益更大。理想的血糖控制都能使胰岛素抵抗得到改善。     

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。     

门冬胰岛素30不同注射方式及诺和灵30R治疗2型糖尿病疗效比较

目的 比较门冬胰岛素30不同注射方式及诺和灵30R对2型糖尿患者血糖控制的疗效及安全性.方法 随机将180例2型糖尿患者分为门冬胰岛素30 3次/d注射组(A组)50例、门冬胰岛素30 2次/d注射组(B组)65例、诺和灵30R 2次/d注射组(C组)65例,分别比较3组治疗后2周及12周空腹、餐后2 h血糖、胰岛素用量、低血糖次数、体重指数(BMI)、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1C)(仅治疗12周后比较)情况.结果 治疗2周后A组与c组比较,空腹血糖[(7.1±2.5)mmol/L与(8.3±4.6)mmol/L,t=3.63,P<0.01]、餐后2h血糖[(8.3±2.7)mmol/L与(10.2±5.6)mmol/L,t=3.95,P<0.01]、胰岛素用量[(23.5±4.6)U/L与(32.8±9.6)U/L,t=3.67,P<0.01]、低血糖次数(0次,8次,X2=3.28,P<0.01)差异均有统计学意义;A组与B组比较空腹血糖[(7.1±2.5)mmol/L与(7.3±3.6)mmol/L,t=2.74,P<0.05]、餐后2 h血糖[(8.3±2.7)mmol/L与(9.0±3.8)mmol/L,t=2.18,P<0.05]差异均有统计学意义,但A、B组间胰岛素用量比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);3组BMI比较差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05).治疗12周后A组与C组比较空腹血糖[(6.3±1.4)mmol/L与(7.9±3.9)mmol/L,t=2.45,P<0.01]、餐后2h血糖[(8.2±1.9)mmol/L与(10.3±6.4)mmol/L,t=2.79,P<0.01]、HbA1C[(6.5±1.3)%与(7.6±2.0)%,t=3.13,P<0.01]、低血糖次数(0次,12次,X2=2.35,P<0.01)差异均有统计学意义,胰岛素用量也小于C组[(22.8±3.8)U/L与(25.9±0.8)U/L,t=2.84,P<0.01);A组与B组比较空腹血糖[(6.3±1.4)mmol/L与(6.7±1.8)mmol/L,t=2.03,P<0.05]、餐后2 h血糖[(8.2±1.9)mmol/L与(9.0±3.8)mmol/L,t=2.14,P<0.05]、HbA1C[(6.5±1.3)%与(7.0±1.7)%,t=2.37,P<0.05]差异均有统计学意义,A、B 2组间胰岛素用量差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);C组的BMI高于A、B组[(25.9±0.8)、(24.2±0.9)kg/m2与(24.6±1.1)kg/m2,t=2.98,t=2.76,P均<0.05).结论 门冬胰岛素30 3次/d注射是一种安全、有效的2型糖尿病控制方法.     

门冬胰岛素30不同注射方式及诺和灵30R治疗2型糖尿病疗效比较

目的 比较门冬胰岛素30不同注射方式及诺和灵30R对2型糖尿患者血糖控制的疗效及安全性.方法 随机将180例2型糖尿患者分为门冬胰岛素30 3次/d注射组(A组)50例、门冬胰岛素30 2次/d注射组(B组)65例、诺和灵30R 2次/d注射组(C组)65例,分别比较3组治疗后2周及12周空腹、餐后2 h血糖、胰岛素用量、低血糖次数、体重指数(BMI)、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1C)(仅治疗12周后比较)情况.结果 治疗2周后A组与c组比较,空腹血糖[(7.1±2.5)mmol/L与(8.3±4.6)mmol/L,t=3.63,P<0.01]、餐后2h血糖[(8.3±2.7)mmol/L与(10.2±5.6)mmol/L,t=3.95,P<0.01]、胰岛素用量[(23.5±4.6)U/L与(32.8±9.6)U/L,t=3.67,P<0.01]、低血糖次数(0次,8次,X2=3.28,P<0.01)差异均有统计学意义;A组与B组比较空腹血糖[(7.1±2.5)mmol/L与(7.3±3.6)mmol/L,t=2.74,P<0.05]、餐后2 h血糖[(8.3±2.7)mmol/L与(9.0±3.8)mmol/L,t=2.18,P<0.05]差异均有统计学意义,但A、B组间胰岛素用量比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);3组BMI比较差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05).治疗12周后A组与C组比较空腹血糖[(6.3±1.4)mmol/L与(7.9±3.9)mmol/L,t=2.45,P<0.01]、餐后2h血糖[(8.2±1.9)mmol/L与(10.3±6.4)mmol/L,t=2.79,P<0.01]、HbA1C[(6.5±1.3)%与(7.6±2.0)%,t=3.13,P<0.01]、低血糖次数(0次,12次,X2=2.35,P<0.01)差异均有统计学意义,胰岛素用量也小于C组[(22.8±3.8)U/L与(25.9±0.8)U/L,t=2.84,P<0.01);A组与B组比较空腹血糖[(6.3±1.4)mmol/L与(6.7±1.8)mmol/L,t=2.03,P<0.05]、餐后2 h血糖[(8.2±1.9)mmol/L与(9.0±3.8)mmol/L,t=2.14,P<0.05]、HbA1C[(6.5±1.3)%与(7.0±1.7)%,t=2.37,P<0.05]差异均有统计学意义,A、B 2组间胰岛素用量差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);C组的BMI高于A、B组[(25.9±0.8)、(24.2±0.9)kg/m2与(24.6±1.1)kg/m2,t=2.98,t=2.76,P均<0.05).结论 门冬胰岛素30 3次/d注射是一种安全、有效的2型糖尿病控制方法.     

门冬胰岛素30不同注射方式及诺和灵30R治疗2型糖尿病疗效比较

目的 比较门冬胰岛素30不同注射方式及诺和灵30R对2型糖尿患者血糖控制的疗效及安全性.方法 随机将180例2型糖尿患者分为门冬胰岛素30 3次/d注射组(A组)50例、门冬胰岛素30 2次/d注射组(B组)65例、诺和灵30R 2次/d注射组(C组)65例,分别比较3组治疗后2周及12周空腹、餐后2 h血糖、胰岛素用量、低血糖次数、体重指数(BMI)、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1C)(仅治疗12周后比较)情况.结果 治疗2周后A组与c组比较,空腹血糖[(7.1±2.5)mmol/L与(8.3±4.6)mmol/L,t=3.63,P<0.01]、餐后2h血糖[(8.3±2.7)mmol/L与(10.2±5.6)mmol/L,t=3.95,P<0.01]、胰岛素用量[(23.5±4.6)U/L与(32.8±9.6)U/L,t=3.67,P<0.01]、低血糖次数(0次,8次,X2=3.28,P<0.01)差异均有统计学意义;A组与B组比较空腹血糖[(7.1±2.5)mmol/L与(7.3±3.6)mmol/L,t=2.74,P<0.05]、餐后2 h血糖[(8.3±2.7)mmol/L与(9.0±3.8)mmol/L,t=2.18,P<0.05]差异均有统计学意义,但A、B组间胰岛素用量比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);3组BMI比较差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05).治疗12周后A组与C组比较空腹血糖[(6.3±1.4)mmol/L与(7.9±3.9)mmol/L,t=2.45,P<0.01]、餐后2h血糖[(8.2±1.9)mmol/L与(10.3±6.4)mmol/L,t=2.79,P<0.01]、HbA1C[(6.5±1.3)%与(7.6±2.0)%,t=3.13,P<0.01]、低血糖次数(0次,12次,X2=2.35,P<0.01)差异均有统计学意义,胰岛素用量也小于C组[(22.8±3.8)U/L与(25.9±0.8)U/L,t=2.84,P<0.01);A组与B组比较空腹血糖[(6.3±1.4)mmol/L与(6.7±1.8)mmol/L,t=2.03,P<0.05]、餐后2 h血糖[(8.2±1.9)mmol/L与(9.0±3.8)mmol/L,t=2.14,P<0.05]、HbA1C[(6.5±1.3)%与(7.0±1.7)%,t=2.37,P<0.05]差异均有统计学意义,A、B 2组间胰岛素用量差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);C组的BMI高于A、B组[(25.9±0.8)、(24.2±0.9)kg/m2与(24.6±1.1)kg/m2,t=2.98,t=2.76,P均<0.05).结论 门冬胰岛素30 3次/d注射是一种安全、有效的2型糖尿病控制方法.     

门冬胰岛素30不同注射方式及诺和灵30R治疗2型糖尿病疗效比较

目的 比较门冬胰岛素30不同注射方式及诺和灵30R对2型糖尿患者血糖控制的疗效及安全性.方法 随机将180例2型糖尿患者分为门冬胰岛素30 3次/d注射组(A组)50例、门冬胰岛素30 2次/d注射组(B组)65例、诺和灵30R 2次/d注射组(C组)65例,分别比较3组治疗后2周及12周空腹、餐后2 h血糖、胰岛素用量、低血糖次数、体重指数(BMI)、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1C)(仅治疗12周后比较)情况.结果 治疗2周后A组与c组比较,空腹血糖[(7.1±2.5)mmol/L与(8.3±4.6)mmol/L,t=3.63,P<0.01]、餐后2h血糖[(8.3±2.7)mmol/L与(10.2±5.6)mmol/L,t=3.95,P<0.01]、胰岛素用量[(23.5±4.6)U/L与(32.8±9.6)U/L,t=3.67,P<0.01]、低血糖次数(0次,8次,X2=3.28,P<0.01)差异均有统计学意义;A组与B组比较空腹血糖[(7.1±2.5)mmol/L与(7.3±3.6)mmol/L,t=2.74,P<0.05]、餐后2 h血糖[(8.3±2.7)mmol/L与(9.0±3.8)mmol/L,t=2.18,P<0.05]差异均有统计学意义,但A、B组间胰岛素用量比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);3组BMI比较差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05).治疗12周后A组与C组比较空腹血糖[(6.3±1.4)mmol/L与(7.9±3.9)mmol/L,t=2.45,P<0.01]、餐后2h血糖[(8.2±1.9)mmol/L与(10.3±6.4)mmol/L,t=2.79,P<0.01]、HbA1C[(6.5±1.3)%与(7.6±2.0)%,t=3.13,P<0.01]、低血糖次数(0次,12次,X2=2.35,P<0.01)差异均有统计学意义,胰岛素用量也小于C组[(22.8±3.8)U/L与(25.9±0.8)U/L,t=2.84,P<0.01);A组与B组比较空腹血糖[(6.3±1.4)mmol/L与(6.7±1.8)mmol/L,t=2.03,P<0.05]、餐后2 h血糖[(8.2±1.9)mmol/L与(9.0±3.8)mmol/L,t=2.14,P<0.05]、HbA1C[(6.5±1.3)%与(7.0±1.7)%,t=2.37,P<0.05]差异均有统计学意义,A、B 2组间胰岛素用量差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);C组的BMI高于A、B组[(25.9±0.8)、(24.2±0.9)kg/m2与(24.6±1.1)kg/m2,t=2.98,t=2.76,P均<0.05).结论 门冬胰岛素30 3次/d注射是一种安全、有效的2型糖尿病控制方法.     

门冬胰岛素30不同注射方式及诺和灵30R治疗2型糖尿病疗效比较

目的 比较门冬胰岛素30不同注射方式及诺和灵30R对2型糖尿患者血糖控制的疗效及安全性.方法 随机将180例2型糖尿患者分为门冬胰岛素30 3次/d注射组(A组)50例、门冬胰岛素30 2次/d注射组(B组)65例、诺和灵30R 2次/d注射组(C组)65例,分别比较3组治疗后2周及12周空腹、餐后2 h血糖、胰岛素用量、低血糖次数、体重指数(BMI)、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1C)(仅治疗12周后比较)情况.结果 治疗2周后A组与c组比较,空腹血糖[(7.1±2.5)mmol/L与(8.3±4.6)mmol/L,t=3.63,P<0.01]、餐后2h血糖[(8.3±2.7)mmol/L与(10.2±5.6)mmol/L,t=3.95,P<0.01]、胰岛素用量[(23.5±4.6)U/L与(32.8±9.6)U/L,t=3.67,P<0.01]、低血糖次数(0次,8次,X2=3.28,P<0.01)差异均有统计学意义;A组与B组比较空腹血糖[(7.1±2.5)mmol/L与(7.3±3.6)mmol/L,t=2.74,P<0.05]、餐后2 h血糖[(8.3±2.7)mmol/L与(9.0±3.8)mmol/L,t=2.18,P<0.05]差异均有统计学意义,但A、B组间胰岛素用量比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);3组BMI比较差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05).治疗12周后A组与C组比较空腹血糖[(6.3±1.4)mmol/L与(7.9±3.9)mmol/L,t=2.45,P<0.01]、餐后2h血糖[(8.2±1.9)mmol/L与(10.3±6.4)mmol/L,t=2.79,P<0.01]、HbA1C[(6.5±1.3)%与(7.6±2.0)%,t=3.13,P<0.01]、低血糖次数(0次,12次,X2=2.35,P<0.01)差异均有统计学意义,胰岛素用量也小于C组[(22.8±3.8)U/L与(25.9±0.8)U/L,t=2.84,P<0.01);A组与B组比较空腹血糖[(6.3±1.4)mmol/L与(6.7±1.8)mmol/L,t=2.03,P<0.05]、餐后2 h血糖[(8.2±1.9)mmol/L与(9.0±3.8)mmol/L,t=2.14,P<0.05]、HbA1C[(6.5±1.3)%与(7.0±1.7)%,t=2.37,P<0.05]差异均有统计学意义,A、B 2组间胰岛素用量差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);C组的BMI高于A、B组[(25.9±0.8)、(24.2±0.9)kg/m2与(24.6±1.1)kg/m2,t=2.98,t=2.76,P均<0.05).结论 门冬胰岛素30 3次/d注射是一种安全、有效的2型糖尿病控制方法.     

门冬胰岛素30不同注射方式及诺和灵30R治疗2型糖尿病疗效比较

目的 比较门冬胰岛素30不同注射方式及诺和灵30R对2型糖尿患者血糖控制的疗效及安全性.方法 随机将180例2型糖尿患者分为门冬胰岛素30 3次/d注射组(A组)50例、门冬胰岛素30 2次/d注射组(B组)65例、诺和灵30R 2次/d注射组(C组)65例,分别比较3组治疗后2周及12周空腹、餐后2 h血糖、胰岛素用量、低血糖次数、体重指数(BMI)、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1C)(仅治疗12周后比较)情况.结果 治疗2周后A组与c组比较,空腹血糖[(7.1±2.5)mmol/L与(8.3±4.6)mmol/L,t=3.63,P<0.01]、餐后2h血糖[(8.3±2.7)mmol/L与(10.2±5.6)mmol/L,t=3.95,P<0.01]、胰岛素用量[(23.5±4.6)U/L与(32.8±9.6)U/L,t=3.67,P<0.01]、低血糖次数(0次,8次,X2=3.28,P<0.01)差异均有统计学意义;A组与B组比较空腹血糖[(7.1±2.5)mmol/L与(7.3±3.6)mmol/L,t=2.74,P<0.05]、餐后2 h血糖[(8.3±2.7)mmol/L与(9.0±3.8)mmol/L,t=2.18,P<0.05]差异均有统计学意义,但A、B组间胰岛素用量比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);3组BMI比较差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05).治疗12周后A组与C组比较空腹血糖[(6.3±1.4)mmol/L与(7.9±3.9)mmol/L,t=2.45,P<0.01]、餐后2h血糖[(8.2±1.9)mmol/L与(10.3±6.4)mmol/L,t=2.79,P<0.01]、HbA1C[(6.5±1.3)%与(7.6±2.0)%,t=3.13,P<0.01]、低血糖次数(0次,12次,X2=2.35,P<0.01)差异均有统计学意义,胰岛素用量也小于C组[(22.8±3.8)U/L与(25.9±0.8)U/L,t=2.84,P<0.01);A组与B组比较空腹血糖[(6.3±1.4)mmol/L与(6.7±1.8)mmol/L,t=2.03,P<0.05]、餐后2 h血糖[(8.2±1.9)mmol/L与(9.0±3.8)mmol/L,t=2.14,P<0.05]、HbA1C[(6.5±1.3)%与(7.0±1.7)%,t=2.37,P<0.05]差异均有统计学意义,A、B 2组间胰岛素用量差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);C组的BMI高于A、B组[(25.9±0.8)、(24.2±0.9)kg/m2与(24.6±1.1)kg/m2,t=2.98,t=2.76,P均<0.05).结论 门冬胰岛素30 3次/d注射是一种安全、有效的2型糖尿病控制方法.     

危重颅脑疾病患者胰岛素强化治疗高血糖与预后相关性的研究

目的 危重颅脑疾病患者高血糖程度是影响患者预后的重要因素，本研究旨在探讨强化胰岛素治疗与危重颅脑疾病患者的感染发生率及病死率等预后指标之间的相关性。方法 采用前瞻、随机、对照临床试验，将64例危重颅脑疾病患者分为常规组（n=32）和胰岛素强化治疗组（n=32）。常规治疗是指当患者血糖≥11．1mmol／L时，控制其血糖水平〈11．1mmol／L；强化治疗组则控制患者血糖接近正常水平（3．9—6．1mmol／L），直至患者转出ICU或死亡。分析两组病例预后指标之间的差异性。结果 两组存活病例住ICU时间、机械通气时间方面比较差异有统计学意义。两组病例在肺部感染、尿路感染发生率、血培养阳性率、病死率方面差异有统计学意义。结论 危重颅脑疾病患者应用胰岛素强化治疗，将血糖控制于正常范围有助于降低患者的感染发生率及病死率，改善预后。     

Combination of insulin and metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the metabolic effects of metformin, as compared with placebo, in type 2 diabetic patients intensively treated with insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Metformin improves glycemic control in poorly controlled type 2 diabetic patients. Its effect in type 2 diabetic patients who are intensively treated with insulin has not been studied. A total of 390 patients whose type 2 diabetes was controlled with insulin therapy completed a randomized controlled double-blind trial with a planned interim analysis after 16 weeks of treatment.The subjects were selected from three outpatient clinics in regional hospitals and were randomly assigned to either the placebo or metformin group, in addition to insulin therapy. Intensive glucose monitoring with immediate insulin adjustments according to strict guidelines was conducted. Indexes of glycemic control, insulin requirements, body weight, blood pressure, plasma lipids, hypoglycemic events, and other adverse events were measured. RESULTS: Of the 390 subjects, 37 dropped out (12 in the placebo and 25 in the metformin group). Of those who completed 16 weeks of treatment, metformin use, as compared with placebo, was associated with improved glycemic control (mean daily glucose at 16 weeks 7.8 vs. 8.8 mmol/l, P = 0.006; mean GHb 6.9 vs. 7.6%, P < 0.0001); reduced insulin requirements (63.8 vs. 71.3 IU, P < 0.0001); reduced weight gain (-0.4 vs. +1.2 kg, P < 0.01); and decreased plasma LDL cholesterol (-0.21 vs. -0.02 mmol/l, P < 0.01). Risk of hypoglycemia was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS-In type 2 diabetic patients who are intensively treated with insulin, the combination of insulin and metformin results in superior glycemic control compared with insulin therapy alone, while insulin requirements and weight gain are less.     

改良胃旁路术对GK大鼠抵抗素的影响

目的:探讨改良胃旁路手术(improved gastric bypass)对2型糖尿病GK大鼠(Goto-Kakizaki rats)的降糖作用及其机制。方法:20只雄性GK大鼠随机分为手术组和对照组,每组10只。对手术组大鼠行改良胃旁路术,对照组大鼠在十二指肠球部远端0.5cm处切断吻合。检测术前1周及术后第8周两组GK大鼠体重、空腹血糖(FPG)、血脂、血浆胰岛素、血浆抵抗素水平。结果:术后8周,手术组大鼠FPG由术前的(5.2±0.3)mmol/L降至(4.0±0.2)mmol/L,血浆抵抗素由术前的(9.9±1.7)mmol/L降至(5.7±1.0)mmol/L,与术前相比,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:改良胃旁路术能降低GK大鼠的血糖,并且能够降低GK大鼠的血脂和血浆抵抗素,其可能是胃旁路术治疗2型糖尿病的机制之一。     

Lowering of glucose in critical care: a randomized pilot trial

BACKGROUND: Similar to cardiac surgery patients, medical-surgical critically ill patients may benefit from intensive insulin therapy. The objectives of this pilot trial were to evaluate the feasibility of a randomized trial of intensive insulin therapy with respect to (a) achieving target glucose values in the 2 ranges of 5 to 7 and 8 to 10 mmol/L and (b) uncovering problems with the protocol in anticipation of a larger trial. SETTING: The trial was conducted in a 15-bed medical-surgical university-affiliated intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We included patients older than 18 years, expected to be in ICU for more than 72 hours, with a glucose value of more than 10 mmol/L within 48 hours of ICU admission. Exclusion criteria were diabetic ketoacidosis, severe hepatic failure or hepatic resection, pancreatitis, glucose of less than 2.2 mmol/L on admission to hospital, insulin infusion on admission to ICU, planned withdrawal of life support, and inability to obtain informed consent. Patients underwent concealed random allocation to a target glucose range of 5 to 7 or 8 to 10 mmol/L using pretested algorithms of insulin infusions. Dedicated glucometer measurement of arterial glucose values was calibrated daily to values measured in the laboratory. RESULTS: We enrolled 20 patients with a mean (SD) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of 32 (10.2); 14 were insulin-dependent pre-ICU, and all were medical admissions. Mean glucose values were different in the 2 groups (7.1 +/- 2.6 vs 9.4 +/- 2.1 mmol/L, P < .001). Although the intensive insulin therapy group had more glucose measurements performed than the control group, a similar proportion of values were within the target range (682 [42.4%] of 1607 values in the 5- to 7-mmol/L range; 250 [38.7%] of 660 values in the 8- to 10-mmol/L range, P = .35). Glucose values of less than 2.5 mmol/L developed 7 times in 5 patients, 4 of whom were in the intensive insulin therapy group; however, no adverse consequences were documented. As expected, there were no differences in clinically important outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot trial of ICU patients with high illness severity, glucose values were in the 2 target ranges only 40% of the time, using well-accepted initiation and maintenance insulin infusion algorithms. A large randomized trial of glycemic control is feasible in this population to examine clinically important outcomes, but will require refined insulin algorithms and more comprehensive behavior change strategies to achieve target values.     

Statin intake is associated with decreased insulin sensitivity during cardiac surgery

OBJECTIVE Surgical trauma impairs intraoperative insulin sensitivity and is associated with postoperative adverse events. Recently, preprocedural statin therapy is recommended for patients with coronary artery disease. However, statin therapy is reported to increase insulin resistance and the risk of new-onset diabetes. Thus, we investigated the association between preoperative statin therapy and intraoperative insulin sensitivity in nondiabetic, dyslipidemic patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In this prospective, nonrandomized trial, patients taking lipophilic statins were assigned to the statin group and hypercholesterolemic patients not receiving any statins were allocated to the control group. Insulin sensitivity was assessed by the hyperinsulinemic-normoglycemic clamp technique during surgery. The mean, SD of blood glucose, and the coefficient of variation (CV) after surgery were calculated for each patient. The association between statin use and intraoperative insulin sensitivity was tested by multiple regression analysis. RESULTS We studied 120 patients. In both groups, insulin sensitivity gradually decreased during surgery with values being on average ～20% lower in the statin than in the control group. In the statin group, the mean blood glucose in the intensive care unit was higher than in the control group (153 ± 20 vs. 140 ± 20 mg/dL; P < 0.001). The oscillation of blood glucose was larger in the statin group (SD, P < 0.001; CV, P = 0.001). Multiple regression analysis showed that statin use was independently associated with intraoperative insulin sensitivity (β = -0.16; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Preoperative use of lipophilic statins is associated with increased insulin resistance during cardiac surgery in nondiabetic, dyslipidemic patients.     

急性心肌梗死患者入院血糖水平与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后预后的关系

目的 观察急性心肌梗死 (AMI) 患者随机血糖水平对介入治疗后预后的影响.方法 选取急性心肌梗死患者354例,根据入院第一次随机血糖分为3组:A组:132例,血糖＜7.80 mmol/L;B组120例,血糖7.80～11.00 mmol/L;C组102例,血糖≥11.00 mmol/L.结果 与A组相比,C组血胆固醇、低密度脂蛋白、甘油三酯浓度较高(P<0.05).冠状动脉造影示B、C组多支病变比例高于A组,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).B、C组校正TIMI帧数(CTFC)值高于A组(P<0.05).B、C组主要心血管事件发生率及病死率高于A组,其中C组与A组相比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 入院随机血糖升高的急性心肌梗死患者,进行直接介入治疗后预后较差,心血管事件发生率及病死率较高.     

Intensive insulin therapy does not alter the inflammatory response in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN95608630]

Introduction  

Strict control of plasma glucose in diabetic and non-diabetic patients has been shown to improve outcome in several clinical settings. There is extensive evidence that glucose can stimulate the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and IL-6, with no effect on the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10. We hypothesized that strict glucose regulation results in a change in cytokine balance from a pro-inflammatory state to a more balanced anti-inflammatory condition. In a randomized controlled trial we studied the effect of strict glycemic control on the local and systemic pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory balance in non-diabetic patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass.     

碳水化合物计数法在2型糖尿病临床实践中的作用

目的探讨碳水化合物计数法对2型糖尿病患者血糖控制的意义。方法选取141例2型糖尿病患者,依据随机数字表分为碳水化合物计数法组(研究组)和食物交换份组(对照组)。研究组采用碳水化合物计数法的热量交换份,确定每日碳水化合物的份数;对照组采用传统食物交换份法+血糖负荷指数进行指导。除饮食干预外,两组临床治疗均无差别对待。观察人体成分各项指标和血糖相关监测指标变化。结果研究组中途失访或退出7例,对照组失访3例。干预1周后,组间餐后血糖差异有统计学意义[(10.33±4.92)mmol/L比(12.71±2.95)mmol/L,t=3.34,P=0.00];干预3周后,两组间空腹血糖、血清胰岛素水平差异有统计学意义[(6.02±1.51)mmol/L比(7.33±2.46)mmol/L,(10.29±4.66)mmol/L比(13.95±10.31)mmol/L,均P<0.05)],此外研究组糖化血红蛋白、腰臀比和基础代谢也均有显著改善。结论碳水化合物计数法在2型糖尿病患者的血糖、血清胰岛素水平以及内脏脂肪面积控制方面均优于传统食物交换份法。