Glycemic control, diabetic status, and mortality in a heterogeneous population of critically ill patients before and during the era of intensive glycemic management: six and one-half years experience at a university-affiliated community hospital.
ABSTRACT Hyperglycemia occurs commonly in acutely and critically ill patients and has been associated with adverse clinical consequences. An emerging body of literature describes the beneficial effects of intensive glycemic monitoring and treatment (tight glycemic control, or "TGC"). This manuscript reviews the experience of a cohort of 5365 non-cardiac surgery patients admitted to the adult intensive care unit of a university-affiliated community hospital before and after implementation of TGC. Significant decreases in mortality occurred among medical and surgical patients during the TGC era, but not among trauma patients. Non-diabetics who sustained hyperglycemia had an especially high risk of mortality, and benefited greatly from treatment. Further investigations will be needed to identify the most appropriate glycemic targets for different populations of patients.
- SourceAvailable from: Roman Hovorka[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Space GlucoseControl system (SGC) is a nurse-driven, computer-assisted device for glycemic control combining infusion pumps with the enhanced Model Predictive Control algorithm (B. Braun, Melsungen, Germany). We aimed to investigate the performance of the SGC in medical critically ill patients.BMC Endocrine Disorders 07/2014; 14(1):62. · 2.65 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Both patient- and context-specific factors may explain the conflicting evidence regarding glucose control in critically ill patients. Blood glucose variability appears to correlate with mortality, but this variability may be an indicator of disease severity, rather than an independent predictor of mortality. We assessed blood glucose coefficient of variation as an independent predictor of mortality in the critically ill.Critical care (London, England) 04/2014; 18(2):R86. · 4.72 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Hyperglycaemia is common in the critically ill. The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence of critical illness-associated hyperglycaemia (CIAH) and recognised and unrecognised diabetes in the critically ill as well as to evaluate the impact of premorbid glycaemia on the association between acute hyperglycaemia and mortality. In 1,000 consecutively admitted patients we prospectively measured glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) on admission, and blood glucose concentrations during the 48 h after admission, to the intensive care unit. Patients with blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/l when fasting or ≥11.1 mmol/l during feeding were deemed hyperglycaemic. Patients with acute hyperglycaemia and HbA1c <6.5 % (48 mmol/mol) were categorised as 'CIAH', those with known diabetes as 'recognised diabetes', and those with HbA1c ≥6.5 % but no previous diagnosis of diabetes as 'unrecognised diabetes'. The remainder were classified as 'normoglycaemic'. Hospital mortality, HbA1c and acute peak glycaemia were assessed using a logistic regression model. Of 1,000 patients, 498 (49.8 %) had CIAH, 220 (22 %) had recognised diabetes, 55 (5.5 %) had unrecognised diabetes and 227 (22.7 %) were normoglycaemic. The risk of death increased by approximately 20 % for each increase in acute glycaemia of 1 mmol/l in patients with CIAH and those with diabetes and HbA1c levels <7 % (53 mmol/mol), but not in patients with diabetes and HbA1c ≥7 %. This association was lost when adjusted for severity of illness. Critical illness-associated hyperglycaemia is the most frequent cause of hyperglycaemia in the critically ill. Peak glucose concentrations during critical illness are associated with increased mortality in patients with adequate premorbid glycaemic control, but not in patients with premorbid hyperglycaemia. Optimal glucose thresholds in the critically ill may, therefore, be affected by premorbid glycaemia.European Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 04/2014; · 5.17 Impact Factor