Intensive insulin therapy versus conventional glycemic control in patients with acute neurological injury - A prospective controlled trial

Federal University of Maranhão, Maranhão, Maranhão, Brazil
Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria (Impact Factor: 0.84). 09/2007; 65(3B):733-8. DOI: 10.1590/S0004-282X2007000500001
Source: PubMed


To compare intensive insulin therapy to conventional glycemic control in patients with acute neurological injury evaluating neurological outcome and morbimortality.
Patients with two glycemias above 150 mg/dL 12 hours after admission were randomized to receive intensive insulin therapy (G1) or conventional treatment (G2). We evaluated a subgroup of patients with acute brain injury from July, 2004 to June, 2006.
G1 patients (n=31) received 70.5 (45.1-87.5) units of insulin/day while G2 patients (n=19) received 2 (0.6-14.1) units/day (p<0.0001). The median glycemia was comparable in both groups (p=0.16). Hypoglycemia occurred in 2 patients (6.4%) in G1 and in 1 patient (5.8%) in G2 (p=1.0). Mortality in G1 was of 25.8% and of 35.2% in G2 (relative reduction of 27%). Neurological outcome was similar in both groups.
A less strict intensive insulin therapy can reduce hypoglycemia and still maintain its benefits.

Download full-text


Available from: Rachel Cossetti, Oct 28, 2015
  • Source

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hyperglycemia in perioperative patients has been identified as a risk factor for morbidity and mortality. Intensive insulin therapy (IIT) has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality among the critically ill, decrease infection rates and improve survival after cardiac surgery, and improve outcomes in acute neurologic injury and acute myocardial infarction. However, recent evidence of severe hypoglycemia and adverse events associated with IIT brings its safety and efficacy into question. In this article, we summarize the mechanisms and rationale of hyperglycemia and IIT, review the evidence behind the use of IIT in the perioperative period, and discuss the implications of including glycemic control in national quality benchmarks. We conclude that while avoidance of hyperglycemia is clearly beneficial, the appropriate glucose target and specific subpopulations who might benefit from IIT have yet to be identified. Given the potential for harm, inclusion of glucose targets in national quality benchmarks is premature.
    Anesthesiology 03/2009; 110(2):408-21. DOI:10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181948a80 · 5.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess the influence of intensive insulin therapy (IIT), as compared with conventional insulin therapy (CIT), on mortality of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) by Meta-analysis. Computer retrieval was conducted to search for randomly controlled trials (1966-2009) to compare the result of IIT and CIT. The quality of included studies was critically evaluated and data were analyzed by using the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.0 software. A total of 23 studies were included in the Meta-analyses, consisting 11 216 patients. This Meta-analysis showed that there were significant difference between IIT and CIT in the mortality (unselected in the medical, surgical and mixed ICU), with significant lowering in IIT group. There was remarkable lowering of infection rate and the complication rate in IIT group compared with CIT group. However, the incidence of hypoglycemia was slightly lower in CIT group. IIT tends to lower the mortality rate, infection rate, and complications in critically ill patients in the ICU as compared with CIT. Also with IIT the target blood glucose can be easier reached than CIT. The therapy can improve the quality of life. However, IIT is not as good as CIT in the control of hypoglycemia.
    Zhongguo wei zhong bing ji jiu yi xue = Chinese critical care medicine = Zhongguo weizhongbing jijiuyixue 07/2009; 21(6):349-52. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1003-0603.2009.06.010
Show more