Tran Nam K, Godwin Zachary R, Bockhold Jennifer C, Passerini Anthony G, Cheng Julian, Ingemason Morgan
From the *Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine, and †Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Davis.
J Burn Care Res. 2014 Jan-Feb;35(1):72-9. doi: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e31829b3700.
Severely burned patients benefit from intensive insulin therapy (IIT) for tight glycemic control (TGC). The authors evaluated the clinical impact of automatic correction of hematocrit and ascorbic acid interference for bedside glucose monitoring performance in critically ill burn patients. The performance of two point-of-care glucose monitoring systems (GMSs): 1) GMS1, an autocorrecting device, and 2) GMS2, a noncorrecting device were compared. Sixty remnant arterial blood samples were collected in a prospective observational study to evaluate hematocrit and ascorbic acid effects on GMS1 vs GMS2 accuracy paired against a plasma glucose reference. Next, we enrolled 12 patients in a pilot randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive IIT targeting a TGC interval of 111 to 151 mg/dl and guided by either GMS1 or GMS2. GMS bias, mean insulin rate, and glycemic variability were calculated. In the prospective study, GMS1 results were similar to plasma glucose results (mean bias, -0.75 [4.0] mg/dl; n = 60; P = .214). GMS2 results significantly differed from paired plasma glucose results (mean bias, -5.66 [18.7] mg/dl; n = 60; P = .048). Ascorbic acid therapy elicited significant GMS2 performance bias (29.2 [27.2]; P < .001). Randomized controlled trial results reported lower mean bias (P < .001), glycemic variability (P < .05), mean insulin rate (P < .001), and frequency of hypoglycemia (P < .001) in the GMS1 group than in the GMS2 group. Anemia and high-dose ascorbic acid therapy negatively impact GMS accuracy and TGC in burn patients. Automatic correction of confounding factors improves glycemic control. Further studies are warranted to determine outcomes associated with accurate glucose monitoring during IIT.
严重烧伤患者可从强化胰岛素治疗(IIT)实现严格血糖控制(TGC)中获益。作者评估了自动校正血细胞比容和抗坏血酸干扰对重症烧伤患者床边血糖监测性能的临床影响。比较了两种即时检测血糖监测系统(GMS)的性能:1)GMS1,一种自动校正装置;2)GMS2,一种非校正装置。在一项前瞻性观察研究中收集了60份残余动脉血样本,以评估血细胞比容和抗坏血酸对GMS1与GMS2准确性的影响,并与血浆葡萄糖参考值进行配对比较。接下来,我们纳入12名患者进行一项初步随机对照试验。患者按1:1随机分组,接受IIT,目标血糖控制区间为111至151mg/dl,并分别由GMS1或GMS2进行指导。计算了GMS偏差、平均胰岛素输注速率和血糖变异性。在前瞻性研究中,GMS1的结果与血浆葡萄糖结果相似(平均偏差,-0.75[4.0]mg/dl;n = 60;P = 0.214)。GMS2的结果与配对的血浆葡萄糖结果有显著差异(平均偏差,-5.66[18.7]mg/dl;n = 60;P = 0.048)。抗坏血酸治疗引起了显著的GMS2性能偏差(29.2[27.2];P < 0.001)。随机对照试验结果显示,GMS1组的平均偏差(P < 0.001)、血糖变异性(P < 0.05)、平均胰岛素输注速率(P < 0.001)和低血糖发生率(P < 0.001)均低于GMS2组。贫血和高剂量抗坏血酸治疗对烧伤患者的GMS准确性和TGC有负面影响。自动校正混杂因素可改善血糖控制。有必要进行进一步研究以确定IIT期间准确血糖监测相关的结果。