A randomized controlled trial comparing a computer-assisted insulin infusion protocol with a strict and a conventional protocol for glucose control in critically ill patients

Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo 05652-000, Brazil.
Journal of critical care (Impact Factor: 2.19). 07/2009; 24(3):371-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2009.05.005
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The objective of this study is to evaluate blood glucose (BG) control efficacy and safety of 3 insulin protocols in medical intensive care unit (MICU) patients.
This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial involving 167 MICU patients with at least one BG measurement >or=150 mg/dL and one or more of the following: mechanical ventilation, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, trauma, or burns. The interventions were computer-assisted insulin protocol (CAIP), with insulin infusion maintaining BG between 100 and 130 mg/dL; Leuven protocol, with insulin maintaining BG between 80 and 110 mg/dL; or conventional treatment-subcutaneous insulin if glucose >150 mg/dL. The main efficacy outcome was the mean of patients' median BG, and the safety outcome was the incidence of hypoglycemia (<or=40 mg/dL).
The mean of patients' median BG was 125.0, 127.1, and 158.5 mg/dL for CAIP, Leuven, and conventional treatment, respectively (P = .34, CAIP vs Leuven; P < .001, CAIP vs conventional). In CAIP, 12 patients (21.4%) had at least one episode of hypoglycemia vs 24 (41.4%) in Leuven and 2 (3.8%) in conventional treatment (P = .02, CAIP vs Leuven; P = .006, CAIP vs conventional).
The CAIP is safer than and as effective as the standard strict protocol for controlling glucose in MICU patients. Hypoglycemia was rare under conventional treatment. However, BG levels were higher than with IV insulin protocols.

Download full-text


Available from: José Eluf-Neto, Jul 01, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: The rising incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) induces severe challenges for the health care system. Our research group developed a web-based system named PANDIT that provides T2DM patients with insulin dosing advice using state of the art clinical decision support technology. The PANDIT interface resembles a glucose diary and provides advice through pop-up messages. Diabetes nurses (DNs) also have access to the system, allowing them to intervene when needed. The objective of this study was to establish whether T2DM patients can safely use PANDIT at home. To this end, we assessed whether patients experience usability problems with a high risk of compromising patient safety when interacting with the system, and whether PANDIT's insulin dosing advice are clinically safe. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study population consisted of patients with T2DM (aged 18-80) who used a once daily basal insulin as well as DNs from a university hospital. The usability evaluation consisted of think-aloud sessions with four patients and three DNs. Video data, audio data and verbal utterances were analyzed for usability problems encountered during PANDIT interactions. Usability problems were rated by a physician and a usability expert according to their potential impact on patient safety. The usability evaluation was followed by an implementation with a duration of four weeks. This implementation took place at the patients' homes with ten patients to evaluate clinical safety of PANDIT advice. PANDIT advice were systematically compared with DN advice. Deviating advice were evaluated with respect to patient safety by a panel of experienced physicians, which specialized in diabetes care. RESULTS: We detected seventeen unique usability problems, none of which was judged to have a high risk of compromising patient safety. Most usability problems concerned the lay-out of the diary, which did not clearly indicate which data entry fields had to be entered in order to obtain an advice. 27 out of 74 (36.5%) PANDIT advice differed from those provided by DNs. However, only one of these (1.4%) was considered unsafe by the panel. CONCLUSION: T2DM patients with no prior experience with the web-based self-management system were capable of consulting the system without encountering significant usability problems. Furthermore, the large majority of PANDIT advice were considered clinically safe according to the expert panel. One advice was considered unsafe. This could however easily be corrected by implementing a small modification to the system's knowledge base.
    Artificial intelligence in medicine 06/2013; 59(1). DOI:10.1016/j.artmed.2013.04.009 · 1.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A parallel method for region growing on a highly parallel single-instruction multiple-data (SIMD) mesh computer is presented. The approach is based on a parallel merging paradigm, which involves the selection of the best of all merge possibilities for all regions concurrently. A key requirement of any parallel region growing scheme is the ability to compute functions concurrently on irregularly shaped regions. A set of general primitive functions for region growing are defined, and techniques to implement these functions on an SIMD processor are developed. These techniques make use of an embedded tree data structure to represent regions. The results of implementing a parallel split and merge region growing algorithm on the massively parallel processor are discussed. The approach is shown to be efficient primarily for images involving large numbers of regions
    Frontiers of Massively Parallel Computation, 1988. Proceedings., 2nd Symposium on the Frontiers of; 11/1988
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Control of blood glucose (BG) in critically ill patients is considered important, but is difficult to achieve, and often associated with increased risk of hypoglycemia. We examined the use of a computerized insulin dosing algorithm to manage hyperglycemia with particular attention to frequency and conditions surrounding hypoglycemic events. This is a retrospective analysis of adult patients with hyperglycemia receiving intravenous (IV) insulin therapy from March 2006 to December 2007 in the intensive care units of 2 tertiary care teaching hospitals. Patients placed on a glycemic control protocol using the Clarian GlucoStabilizer IV insulin dosing calculator with a target range of 4.4-6.1 mmol/L were analyzed. Metrics included time to target, time in target, mean blood glucose +/- standard deviation, % measures in hypoglycemic ranges <3.9 mmol/L, per-patient hypoglycemia, and BG testing interval. 4,588 ICU patients were treated with the GlucoStabilizer to a BG target range of 4.4-6.1 mmol/L. We observed 254 severe hypoglycemia episodes (BG <2.2 mmol/L) in 195 patients, representing 0.1% of all measurements, and in 4.25% of patients or 0.6 episodes per 1000 hours on insulin infusion. The most common contributing cause for hypoglycemia was measurement delay (n = 170, 66.9%). The median (interquartile range) time to achieve the target range was 5.9 (3.8 - 8.9) hours. Nearly all (97.5%) of patients achieved target and remained in target 73.4% of the time. The mean BG (+/- SD) after achieving target was 5.4 (+/- 0.52) mmol/L. Targeted blood glucose levels were achieved at similar rates with low incidence of severe hypoglycemia in patients with and without diabetes, sepsis, renal, and cardiovascular disease. Glycemic control to a lower glucose target range can be achieved using a computerized insulin dosing protocol. With particular attention to timely measurement and adjustment of insulin doses the risk of hypoglycemia experienced can be minimized.
    Critical care (London, England) 10/2009; 13(5):R163. DOI:10.1186/cc8129