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

ABSTRACT 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.

1 Follower
12 Reads
  • 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
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Significant fluctuations in serum glucose levels accompany the stress response of surgery or acute injury and may be associated with vascular or neurologic morbidity. Maintenance of euglycemia with intensive insulin therapy (IIT) continues to be investigated as a therapeutic intervention to decrease morbidity associated with derangements in glucose metabolism. Hypoglycemia is a common side effect of IIT with potential for significant morbidity, especially in the neurologically injured patient. Differences in cerebral versus systemic glucose metabolism, the time course of cerebral response to injury, and heterogeneity of pathophysiology in neurosurgical patient populations are important to consider in evaluating the risks and benefits of IIT. While extremes of glucose levels are to be avoided, there are little data to support specific use of IIT for maintenance of euglycemia in the perioperative management of neurosurgical patients. Existing data are summarized and reviewed in this context.
    Journal of diabetes science and technology 11/2009; 3(6):1352-64. DOI:10.1177/193229680900300615
Show more


12 Reads
Available from