The evaluation of the ability of closed-loop glycemic control device to maintain the blood glucose concentration in intensive care unit patients*

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 575-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomoaki Yatabe ◽  
Rie Yamazaki ◽  
Hiroyuki Kitagawa ◽  
Takehiro Okabayashi ◽  
Koichi Yamashita ◽  
...  
2006 ◽  
Vol 105 (2) ◽  
pp. 244-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moritoki Egi ◽  
Rinaldo Bellomo ◽  
Edward Stachowski ◽  
Craig J. French ◽  
Graeme Hart

Background Intensive insulin therapy may reduce mortality and morbidity in selected surgical patients. Intensive insulin therapy also reduced the SD of blood glucose concentration, an accepted measure of variability. There is no information on the possible significance of variability in glucose concentration. Methods The methods included extraction of blood glucose values from electronically stored biochemical databases and of data on patient's characteristics, clinical features, and outcome from electronically stored prospectively collected patient databases; calculation of SD of glucose as a marker of variability and of several indices of glucose control in each patient; and statistical assessment of the relation between these variables and intensive care unit mortality. Results There were 168,337 blood glucose measurements in the study cohort of 7,049 critically ill patients (4.2 hourly measurements on average). The mean +/- SD of blood glucose concentration was 1.7 +/- 1.3 mM in survivors and 2.3 +/- 1.6 mM in nonsurvivors (P < 0.001). Using multiple variable logistic regression analysis, both mean and SD of blood glucose were significantly associated with intensive care unit mortality (P < 0.001; odds ratios [per 1 mM] 1.23 and 1.27, respectively) and hospital mortality (P < 0.001 and P = 0.013; odds ratios [per 1 mM] 1.21 and 1.18, respectively). Conclusions The SD of glucose concentration is a significant independent predictor of intensive care unit and hospital mortality. Decreasing the variability of blood glucose concentration might be an important aspect of glucose management.


1992 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 390-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.H. Tzamaloukas ◽  
G.H. Murata ◽  
B. Eisenberg ◽  
G. Murphy ◽  
P.S. Avasthi

Eight diabetic men with poor glycemic control, probably worsened by severe congestive heart failure and gastroparesis, were sequentially dialyzed by CAPD and hemodialysis. Mean blood glucose concentration, blood glycosylated hemoglobin, and insulin dose were higher during CAPD than during hemodialysis. Among blood glucose determinations, however, the frequency of hypoglycemia (glucose <3.3 mmol/L) was higher during hemodialysis (13.2 ± 8.9%) than during CAPD (2.8 ± 2.1% p = 0.012), whereas the frequencies of hyperglycemia (glucose >11.1 mmol/L) and euglycemia (glucose between 3.5 and 11.1 mmol/L) did not differ between the two dialysis modalities. Furthermore, hypoglycemia was severe during hemodialysis and was associated with two deaths. There were no deaths linked to abnormalities in blood glucose concentration during CAPD. When hypoglycemia is frequent in diabetics with poor glycemic control, CAPD is preferable to hemodialysis.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (11-12) ◽  
pp. 889-896 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kara Stoudt ◽  
Sanjay Chawla

Stress hyperglycemia is the transient increase in blood glucose as a result of complex hormonal changes that occur during critical illness. It has been described in the critically ill for nearly 200 years; patient harm, including increases in morbidity, mortality, and lengths of stay, has been associated with hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glucose variability. However, there remains a contentious debate regarding the optimal glucose ranges for this population, most notably within the past 15 years. Recent landmark clinical trials have dramatically changed the treatment of stress hyperglycemia in the intensive care unit (ICU). Earlier studies suggested that tight glucose control improved both morbidity and mortality for ICU patients, but later studies have suggested potential harm related to the development of hypoglycemia. Multiple trials have tried to elucidate potential glucose target ranges for special patient populations, including those with diabetes, trauma, sepsis, cardiac surgery, and brain injuries, but there remains conflicting evidence for most of these subpopulations. Currently, most international organizations recommend targeting moderate blood glucose concentration to levels <180 mg/dL for all patients in the intensive care unit. In this review, the history of stress hyperglycemia and its treatment will be discussed including optimal glucose target ranges, devices for monitoring blood glucose, and current professional organizations’ recommendations regarding glucose control in the ICU.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Tiago Henrique Faccio Segato ◽  
Célia Ghedini Ralha ◽  
Sérgio Eduardo Soares Fernandes

This article presents the entire process of developing an agent-based system for the glycemic control of patients in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The agent’s goal is to monitor and recommend treatment to keep the patient’s blood glucose within the target range, avoiding complications in the health of patients and even decreasing rates of morbidity and mortality in the ICU. The process of developing the agent-based solution was presented, starting from the understanding of the problem, including a brief review of the literature, going through the pre-project and modelling through the Tropos methodology, until the implementation. The agent inference mechanism is based on production rules and intuitionistic fuzzy logic. An illustration of use, with the collaboration of a specialist intensive care physician, shows how agents behave in a real situation of monitoring and controlling the blood glucose of patients admitted to the ICU, interacting with all elements of the proposed architecture. Finally, feedback from health professionals indicate the system can assist in the glycemic control of patients in the ICU having advantages over traditional monitoring systems.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-50
Author(s):  
Eli E. Miller ◽  
Mumtu Lalla ◽  
Alyssa Zaidi ◽  
May Elgash ◽  
Huaqing Zhao ◽  
...  

Objective: Consensus guidelines recommend that intensive care unit (ICU) patients with blood glucose (BG) levels >180 mg/dL receive continuous intravenous insulin (CII). The effectiveness of CII at controlling BG levels among patients who are eating relative to those who are eating nothing by mouth (nil per os; NPO) has not been described. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 260 adult patients (156 eating, 104 NPO) admitted to an ICU between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, who received CII. Patients were excluded for a diagnosis of diabetic ketoacidosis or hyperglycemic hyperosmolar nonketotic syndrome, admission to an obstetrics service, or receiving continuous enteral or parenteral nutrition. Results: Among 22 baseline characteristics, the proportion of patients receiving glucocorticoid treatment (GCTx) (17.3% eating, 37.5% NPO; P<.001) and APACHE II score (15.0 ± 7.5 eating, 17.9 ± 7.9 NPO; P = .004) were significantly different between eating and NPO patients. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of patient-day weighted mean BG overall (153 ± 8 mg/dL eating, 156 ± 7 mg/dL NPO; P = .73), or day-by-day BG ( P = .37) adjusted for GCTx and APACHE score. Surprisingly, there was a significant difference in the distribution of BG values, with eating patients having a higher percentage of BG readings in the recommended range of 140 to 180 mg/dL. However, eating patients showed greater glucose variability (coefficient of variation 23.1 ± 1.0 eating, 21.2 ± 1.0 NPO; P = .034). Conclusion: Eating may not adversely affect BG levels of ICU patients receiving CII. Whether or not prandial insulin improves glycemic control in this setting should be studied. Abbreviations: BG = blood glucose; CII = continuous insulin infusion; CV = coefficient of variation; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; ICU = intensive care unit; NPO = nil per os; PDWMBG = patient day weighted mean blood glucose


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document