Insulin Infusion Protocols for critically ill Patients: a Highlight of Differences and Similarities

Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California 91766-1854, USA.
Endocrine Practice (Impact Factor: 2.59). 01/2007; 13(2):137-46. DOI: 10.4158/EP.13.2.137
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To discuss the major differences and similarities among the currently published insulin infusion protocols (IIPs) for critically ill patients.
IIPs were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The reference lists for all retrieved protocols were also reviewed to identify any IIPs that were not surfaced with use of our initial search strategies. The major differences and similarities among the IIPs were identified and examined. In addition, strategies for successful implementation of IIPs were outlined.
Our search strategies retrieved 17 IIPs. Currently, no published studies have compared one insulin protocol with another. The major differences or similarities among the published IIPs were in the following areas: patient characteristics, target glucose level, time to achieve target glucose level, incidence of hypoglycemia, rationale for adjusting the rates of insulin infusion, and methods of blood glucose measurements. Because of variations in the definition of hypoglycemia, methods of blood glucose measurement, and types of blood samples used, some comparisons across the protocols were difficult. Use of a multidisciplinary team and gaining administrative support are crucial for addressing issues and provision of necessary resources for implementing a protocol for "tight" glycemic control in critically ill patients.
Clinicians should evaluate the type of patients in their critical care units, the mean baseline glucose levels, and the available resources to determine the most appropriate and practical IIP for their institution.


Available from: Lama Nazer, Jun 04, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine whether glycemic derangements are more effectively controlled using software-guided insulin dosing compared with paper-based protocols. We prospectively evaluated consecutive critically ill patients treated in a tertiary hospital surgical intensive care unit (ICU) between January 1 and June 30, 2008, and between January 1 and September 30, 2009. Paper-based protocol insulin dosing was evaluated as a baseline during the first period, followed by software-guided insulin dosing in the second period. We compared glycemic metrics related to hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glycemic variability during the 2 periods. We treated 110 patients by the paper-based protocol and 87 by the software-guided protocol during the before and after periods, respectively. The mean ICU admission blood glucose (BG) level was higher in patients receiving software-guided intensive insulin than for those receiving paper-based intensive insulin (181 vs 156 mg/dL; P=.003, mean of the per-patient mean). Patients treated with software-guided intensive insulin had lower mean BG levels (117 vs 135 mg/dL; P=.0008), sustained greater time in the desired BG target range (95-135 mg/dL; 68% vs 52%; P=.0001), had less frequent hypoglycemia (percentage of time BG level was <70 mg/dL: 0.51% vs 1.44%; P=.04), and showed decreased glycemic variability (BG level per-patient standard deviation from the mean: ±29 vs ±42 mg/dL; P=.01). Surgical ICU patients whose intensive insulin infusions were managed using the software-guided program achieved tighter glycemic control and fewer glycemic derangements than those managed with the paper-based insulin dosing regimen.
    Mayo Clinic Proceedings 09/2013; 88(9):920-9. DOI:10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.07.003 · 5.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: New guidelines recommend using less intensive glycemic goals in critically ill patients receiving insulin infusions. To compare the efficacy and safety of a modified insulin infusion protocol (MIIP) with less stringent blood glucose (BG) goals to an intensive insulin infusion protocol (IIIP) in patients in a medical intensive care unit (MICU). Retrospective review of patients receiving an insulin infusion for at least 24 hours. Patients treated for hyperglycemic emergencies were excluded. The primary endpoint of the study was mean area under the BG curve (BG-AUC) at 24 and 48 hours. Other endpoints included mean BG, hours until BG at goal, rate of BG above goal, frequency of BG measurements, and rate of hypoglycemia. BG-AUC at 24 hours was similar between the groups (MIIP = 5177.7 ± 1221.3 mg/dL x h vs IIIP = 4850.3 ± 1301.7 mg/dL x h; P = .20). The mean BG level at 24 hours was 225.1 ± 91.1 mg/dL in the MIIP group and 205.7 ± 89.7 mg/dL in the IIIP group (P = .06). In the MIIP group, 61.7% of the BG levels were above goal as compared to 87.5% in the IIIP group (P < .0001). Patients were able to achieve BG goals faster with the MIIP (12.58 ± 10.5 hours vs 29.37 ± 16.8 hours; P < .001). The rate of severe hypoglycemia was lower at 24 hours in the patients following the MIIP (0% vs 0.3%; P = .01). The study showed that by having less intensive glycemic goals, goal BG levels can achieved faster and the rate of severe hypoglycemia can decrease.
    Hospital pharmacy 03/2013; 48(3):213-8. DOI:10.1310/hpj4803-213
  • Source