Department of Anesthesia & Intensive Care, Jessa Hospital, Salvatorstraat 20, B-3500, Hasselt, Belgium.
Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), Research Division SCD, iMINDS Future Health Dept, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 10, B-3001, Leuven (Heverlee), Belgium.
Crit Care. 2017 Aug 14;21(1):212. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1799-6.
Blood glucose control in the intensive care unit (ICU) has the potential to save lives. However, maintaining blood glucose concentrations within a chosen target range is difficult in clinical practice and holds risk of potentially harmful hypoglycemia. Clinically validated computer algorithms to guide insulin dosing by nurses have been advocated for better and safer blood glucose control.
We conducted an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial involving 1550 adult, medical and surgical critically ill patients, requiring blood glucose control. Patients were randomly assigned to algorithm-guided blood glucose control (LOGIC-C, n = 777) or blood glucose control by trained nurses (Nurse-C, n = 773) during ICU stay, according to the local target range (80-110 mg/dL or 90-145 mg/dL). The primary outcome measure was the quality of blood glucose control, assessed by the glycemic penalty index (GPI), a measure that penalizes hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic deviations from the chosen target range. Incidence of severe hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL) was the main safety outcome measure. New infections in ICU, duration of hospital stay, landmark 90-day mortality and quality of life were clinical safety outcome measures.
The median GPI was lower in the LOGIC-C (10.8 IQR 6.2-16.1) than in the Nurse-C group (17.1 IQR 10.6-26.2) (P < 0.001). Mean blood glucose was 111 mg/dL (SD 15) in LOCIC-C versus 119 mg/dL (SD 21) in Nurse-C, whereas the median time-in-target range was 67.0% (IQR 52.1-80.1) in LOGIC-C versus 47.1% (IQR 28.1-65.0) in the Nurse-C group (both P < 0.001). The fraction of patients with severe hypoglycemia did not differ between LOGIC-C (0.9%) and Nurse-C (1.2%) (P = 0.6). The clinical safety outcomes did not differ between groups. The sampling interval was 2.3 h (SD 0.5) in the LOGIC-C group versus 3.0 h (SD 0.8) in the Nurse-C group (P < 0.001).
In a randomized controlled trial of a mixed critically ill patient population, the use of the LOGIC-Insulin blood glucose control algorithm, compared with blood glucose control by expert nurses, improved the quality of blood glucose control without increasing hypoglycemia.
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02056353 . Registered on 4 February 2014.
重症监护病房(ICU)中的血糖控制有可能挽救生命。然而,在临床实践中,将血糖浓度维持在选定的目标范围内是困难的,并且存在潜在有害的低血糖的风险。已经提倡使用经过临床验证的计算机算法来指导护士进行胰岛素给药,以实现更好和更安全的血糖控制。
我们进行了一项国际性、多中心、随机对照试验,涉及 1550 名成年、内科和外科重症患者,需要血糖控制。根据当地目标范围(80-110mg/dL 或 90-145mg/dL),患者在 ICU 期间被随机分配接受算法指导的血糖控制(LOGIC-C,n=777)或经过培训的护士的血糖控制(Nurse-C,n=773)。主要结局指标是血糖控制质量,通过血糖惩罚指数(GPI)评估,该指数惩罚目标范围内的低血糖和高血糖偏差。严重低血糖(<40mg/dL)的发生率是主要的安全性结局指标。ICU 新发感染、住院时间、标志性 90 天死亡率和生活质量是临床安全性结局指标。
与 Nurse-C 组(17.1 IQR 10.6-26.2)相比,LOGIC-C 组的中位 GPI 较低(10.8 IQR 6.2-16.1)(P<0.001)。LOCIC-C 组的平均血糖为 111mg/dL(SD 15),而 Nurse-C 组为 119mg/dL(SD 21),而 LOGIC-C 组的中位目标范围内时间为 67.0%(IQR 52.1-80.1),Nurse-C 组为 47.1%(IQR 28.1-65.0)(均 P<0.001)。严重低血糖的患者比例在 LOGIC-C(0.9%)和 Nurse-C(1.2%)之间没有差异(P=0.6)。两组之间的临床安全性结局没有差异。LOGIC-C 组的采样间隔为 2.3 小时(SD 0.5),Nurse-C 组为 3.0 小时(SD 0.8)(P<0.001)。
在一项混合重症患者人群的随机对照试验中,与专家护士进行血糖控制相比,使用 LOGIC-Insulin 血糖控制算法可改善血糖控制质量,而不会增加低血糖的风险。
ClinicalTrials.gov,NCT02056353。于 2014 年 2 月 4 日注册。