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.


Available from: José Eluf-Neto, Jun 03, 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: Background Inadequate lab monitoring of drugs is a potential cause of ADEs (adverse drug events) which is remediable. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of computerized drug-lab alerts to improve medication-related outcomes. Data sources: Citations from the Computerized Clinical Decision Support System Systematic Review (CCDSSR) and MMIT (Medications Management through Health Information Technology) databases, which had searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1974 to March 27, 2013. Study selection: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of clinician-targeted computerized drug lab alerts conducted in any healthcare setting. Two reviewers performed full text review to determine study eligibility. Data abstraction: A single reviewer abstracted data and evaluated validity of included studies using Cochrane handbook domains. Data synthesis: Thirty-six studies met the inclusion criteria (25 single drug studies with 22,504 participants, 14 targeting anticoagulation; 11 multi-drug studies with 56,769 participants). ADEs were reported as an outcome in only four trials, all targeting anticoagulants. Computerized drug-lab alerts did not reduce ADEs (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79-1.00, p = 0.05), length of hospital stay (SMD 0.00, 95%CI -0.93-0.93, p = 0.055, 1 study), likelihood of hypoglycemia (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.31-5.37) or likelihood of bleeding, but were associated with increased likelihood of prescribing changes (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.21-2.47) or lab monitoring (OR 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.94) in accordance with the alert. Conclusions There is no evidence that computerized drug-lab alerts are associated with important clinical benefits, but there is evidence of improvement in selected clinical surrogate outcomes (time in therapeutic range for vitamin K antagonists), and changes in process outcomes (lab monitoring and prescribing decisions).
    International Journal of Medical Informatics 06/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.03.003 · 2.72 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The mechanisms for hyperglycemia-mediated harm in the hospitalized cardiac patient are poorly understood. Potential obstacles in the inpatient management of hyperglycemia in cardiac patients include rapidly changing clinical status, frequent procedures and interruptions in carbohydrate exposure, and short hospital length of stay. A patient's preadmission regimen is rarely suitable for inpatient glycemic control. Instead, an approach to a flexible, physiologic insulin regimen is described, which is intended to minimize glycemic excursions. When diabetes or hyperglycemia is addressed early and consistently, the hospital stay can serve as a potential window of opportunity for reinforcing self-care behaviors that reduce long-term complications.
    Heart Failure Clinics 10/2012; 8(4):523–538. DOI:10.1016/j.hfc.2012.06.006 · 1.41 Impact Factor