The optimal glycemic target in critically ill patients: an updated network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tanaka A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11017653 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The optimal glycemic target in critically ill patients: an updated network meta-analysis.
Tanaka Aiko A Yatabe Tomoaki T Suhara Tomohiro T Egi Moritoki M
Journal of intensive care 20240414 1
Acute glycemic control significantly affects the clinical outcomes of critically ill patients. This updated network meta-analysis examines the benefits and harms of four target blood glucose levels (< 110, 110-144, 144-180, and > 180 mg/dL). Analyzing data of 27,541 patients from 37 trials, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve for mortality and hypoglycemia was highest at a target blood glucose level of 144-180 mg/dL, while for infection and acute kidney injury at 110-144 mg/dL. Furthe ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Hyperglycemia is common in critically ill patients and can be caused by various mechanisms, including nutrition, medications, and insufficient insulin. In the past, hyperglycemia was thought to be an adaptive response to stress, but hyperglycemia is no longer considered a benign condition in patients with critical illnesses. Indeed, hyperglycemia can increase morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Correction of hyperglycemia may improve clinical outcomes. To date, a definite answer with regard to glucose management in general intensive care unit patients, including treatment thresholds and glucose target is undetermined. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials suggested no survival benefit of tight glycemic control and a significantly increased incidence of hypoglycemia. Studies have shown a J- or U-shaped relationship between average glucose values and mortality; maintaining glucose levels between 100 and 150 mg/dL was likely to be associated with the lowest mortality rates. Recent studies have shown glycemic control < 180 mg/dL is not inferior to near-normal glycemia in critically ill patients and is clearly safer. Glycemic variability is also an important aspect of glucose management in the critically ill patients. Higher glycemic variability may increase the mortality rate, even in patients with the same mean glucose level. Decreasing glucose variability is an important issue for glycemic control in critically ill patients. Continuous measurements with automatic closed-loop systems could be considered to ensure that blood glucose levels are controlled within a specific range and with minimal variability.
| S-EPMC3956063 | biostudies-other
Project description:This meta-analysis aims to update the evidence for the effects of intensive glucose control (IGC) on the outcomes among critically ill patients. We performed a systematic literature review from inception through December, 2017 by two independent authors by searching PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. Randomized clinical trials of the effects of IGC compared with conventional glucose control were selected. Random-effect models were applied to calculate summary relative risks (RRs) for the related outcomes. Of 4247 records identified, we abstracted data from 27 relevant trials for meta-analysis. Compared with patients receiving conventional glucose control (controls), patients with IGC did not have significantly decreased risk of short-term mortality (in-hospital mortality or intensive care unit (ICU) mortality) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92-1.06) or 3- to 6-month mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97-1.08). These results remained constant among different study settings including surgical ICUs, medical ICUs or mixed ICUs. Similarly, we also found that patients with IGC did not have significantly lower risk of sepsis (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89-1.11) or new need for dialysis (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84-1.11). However, patients with IGC had almost 4-fold increase in risk of hypoglycemia (RR 4.86, 95% CI 3.16-7.46). In conclusion, in this updated meta-analysis of published trials, critically ill patients receiving IGC were found to be at neutral risk for short-term or 3- 6-month mortality, risk of sepsis or new need for dialysis, but at higher risk of hypoglycemia.
| S-EPMC6240146 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vitamin C is a water-soluble antioxidant vitamin. Oxidative stress and its markers, along with inflammatory markers, are high during critical illness. Due to conflicting results of the published literature regarding the efficacy of vitamin C in critically ill patients, and especially the concerns for nephrotoxicity raised by some case reports, this meta-analysis was carried out to appraise the evidence and affirmation regarding the role of vitamin C in critically ill patients. We searched the database thoroughly to collect relevant studies that assessed intravenous vitamin C use in critically ill patients published until 25 February 2021. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies with 20 or more critically ill patients who have received intravenous ascorbic acid (vitamin C). After screening 18,312 studies from different databases, 53 were included in our narrative synthesis, and 48 were included in the meta-analysis. We used the Covidence software for screening of the retrieved literature. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 was used for the pooling of data and Odds Ratios (OR) and Mean difference (MD) as measures of effects with a 95% confidence interval to assess for explanatory variables. Pooling data from 33 studies for overall hospital mortality outcomes using a random-effect model showed a 19% reduction in odds of mortality among the vitamin C group (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98). Length of hospital stay (LOS), mortality at 28/30 days, ICU mortality, new-onset AKI and Renal Replacement Therapy (RRT) for AKI did not differ significantly across the two groups. Analysis of data from 30 studies reporting ICU stay disclosed 0.76 fewer ICU days in the vitamin C group than the placebo/standard of care (SOC) group (95% CI, -1.34 to -0.19). This significance for shortening ICU stay persisted even when considering RCTs only in the analysis (MD, -0.70; 95% CI, -1.39 to -0.02). Treatment of critically ill patients with intravenous vitamin C was relatively safe with no significant difference in adverse renal events and decreased in-hospital mortality. The use of vitamin C showed a significant reduction in the length of ICU stays in critically ill patients.
| S-EPMC8539952 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHyperglycemia is prevalent in patients in the pediatric intensive care unit. The purpose of this study was to describe the benefits and risks of tight glucose control (TGC) in critically ill children.MethodsA systemic review and meta-analysis of the literature was carried out on randomized controlled trials of TGC in critically ill children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit. The databases searched were Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases until May 1, 2017. Paired reviewers independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias of included studies, and extracted data. A random-effects model was used to report all outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were hypoglycemia (any, severe), sepsis, new need for dialysis, and seizures.ResultsA total of 4030 patients were included from six studies. All six studies were rated as at low risk of bias. Our meta-analysis showed that TGC did not result in a decrease in risk of hospital mortality (odds ratio (OR), 0.95; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62-1.45; I2 = 40%; moderate quality), sepsis (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63-1.08), or seizures (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.59-1.63). TGC was associated with a decrease in new need for dialysis (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.86). However, TGC was associated with a significant increase in any hypoglycemia (OR, 4.39; 95% CI, 2.39-8.06) and severe hypoglycemia (OR, 4.11; 95% CI, 2.67-6.32).ConclusionsAmong critically ill children with hyperglycemia, TGC does not result in a decrease in hospital mortality, but appears to reduce a new need for dialysis. However, TGC is associated with higher incidence of hypoglycemia.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42017074039 .
| S-EPMC5835325 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The use of antifungal interventions in critically ill patients prior to invasive fungal infection (IFI) being microbiologically confirmed and the preferred drug are still controversial. A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared untargeted antifungal treatments applied to nonneutropenic critically ill patients. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and proven IFI rates. A random-effects model was used with trial sequential analyses (TSA), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to obtain indirect evidence, and a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision-analytic model was completed from the patient perspective over a lifetime horizon. In total, 19 RCTs involving 2,556 patients (7 interventions) were included. Untargeted antifungal treatment did not significantly decrease the incidence of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] = 0.70 to 1.14), but it did reduce the incidence of proven IFI (OR = 0.45, 95%CI = 0.29 to 0.71) relative to placebo/no intervention. The TSA showed that there was sufficient evidence supporting these findings. In the NMA, the only significant difference found for both primary outcomes was between fluconazole and placebo/no intervention in preventing proven IFI (OR = 0.35, 95%CI = 0.19 to 0.65). Based on drug and hospital costs in China, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per life-year saved for fluconazole, caspofungin, and micafungin relative to placebo/no intervention corresponded to US$889, US$9,994, and US$10,351, respectively. Untargeted antifungal treatment significantly reduced proven IFI rates in nonneutropenic critically ill patients but with no mortality benefits relative to placebo/no intervention. Among the well-tolerated antifungals, fluconazole remains the only one that is effective for IFI prevention and significantly cheaper than echinocandins.
| S-EPMC5700297 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe optimal target of mean arterial pressure (MAP) for better outcomes in patients with vasodilatory shock remains a matter of debate. Although catecholamines are generally used to maintain target blood pressure in hypotensive patients with vasodilatory shock, the adverse effects of catecholamines must also be considered. We will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the certainty of evidence determining the optimal target of MAP control for patients with vasodilatory shock in critically ill settings.Methods and analysisThis study protocol was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry. We will include only RCTs that evaluated the two different comparators for target MAP to be maintained for clinical outcomes of all-cause mortality: organ dysfunction and adverse events in critically ill adult patients with vasodilatory shock. We will search the electronic bibliographic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in November 2020. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, perform full article reviews and extract study data. We will report study characteristics and assess methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool. If pooling is appropriate, we will calculate relative risks with 95% CIs for all outcome measures. Clinical and methodological subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed to explore heterogeneity. Overall certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationThis study will not involve primary data collection, and formal ethics approval will therefore not be required. We aim to publish this systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberUMIN000042624.
| S-EPMC7986773 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOur previous study in 2011 concluded that permissive underfeeding may improve outcomes in patients receiving parenteral nutrition therapy. This conclusion was tentative, given the small sample size. We conducted the present systematic review and trial sequential meta-analysis to update the status of permissive underfeeding in patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsSeven databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB 2) was used to assess the risk of bias in the enrolled trials. RevMan software was used for data synthesis. Trial sequential analyses (TSA) of overall and ICU mortalities were performed.ResultsTwenty-three RCTs involving 11,444 critically ill patients were included. There were no significant differences in overall mortality, hospital mortality, length of hospital stays, and incidence of overall infection. Compared with the control group, permissive underfeeding significantly reduced ICU mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], [0.81, 0.99]; P = 0.02; I2 = 0%), and the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events decreased (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, [0.69, 0.90]; P = 0.0003; I2 = 56%). Furthermore, mechanical ventilation duration was reduced (mean difference (MD) = - 1.85 days; 95% CI, [- 3.44, - 0.27]; P = 0.02; I2 = 0%).ConclusionsPermissive underfeeding may reduce ICU mortality in critically ill patients and help to shorten mechanical ventilation duration, but the overall mortality is not improved. Owing to the sample size and patient heterogeneity, the conclusions still need to be verified by well-designed, large-scale RCTs. Trial Registration The protocol for our meta-analysis and systematic review was registered and recorded in PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42023451308). Registered 14 August 2023.
| S-EPMC10804832 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Thromboprophylaxis for venous thromboembolism is widely used in critically ill patients. However, only limited evidence exists regarding the efficacy and safety of the various thromboprophylaxis techniques, especially mechanical thromboprophylaxis. Therefore, we performed meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the overall incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) for between unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) in critically ill patients. A Bayesian random effects model for multiple treatment comparisons was constructed. The primary outcome measure was the overall incidence of DVT at the longest follow-up. The secondary outcome measure was the incidence of major bleeding, as defined by the original trials. Our analysis included 8,622 patients from 12 RCTs. The incidence of DVT was significantly lower in patients treated with UFH (OR, 0.45; 95% CrI, 0.22-0.83) or LMWH (OR, 0.38; 95% CrI, 0.18-0.72) than in patients in the control group. IPC was associated with a reduced incidence of DVT compared to the control group, but the effect was not statistically significant (OR, 0.50; 95% CrI, 0.20-1.23). The risk of DVT was similar for patients treated with UFH and LMWH (OR, 1.16; 95% CrI, 0.68-2.11). The risk of major bleeding was similar between the treatment groups in medical critically ill patients and also in critically ill patients with a high risk of bleeding. In critically ill patients, the efficacy of mechanical thromboprophylaxis in reducing the risk of DVT is not as robust as those of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis.
| S-EPMC5056218 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Early randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the benefits of tight glucose control. Subsequent NICE-SUGAR study found that tight glucose control increased mortality. The optimal glucose target in diabetic and nondiabetic patients remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between blood glucose levels and outcomes in critically ill patients with or without diabetes. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of the eICU database. Repeat ICU stays, ICU stays of less than 2 days, patients transferred from other ICUs, those with less than 2 blood glucose measurements, and those with missing data on hospital mortality were excluded. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Generalised additive models were used to model relationship between glycemic control and mortality. Models were adjusted for age, APACHE IV scores, body mass index, admission diagnosis, mechanical ventilation, and use of vasopressor or inotropic agents. Results There were 52,107 patients in the analysis. Nondiabetes patients exhibited a J-shaped association between time-weighted average glucose and hospital mortality, while this association in diabetes patients was right-shifted and flattened. Using a TWA glucose of 100 mg/dL as the reference value, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of TWA glucose of 140 mg/dL was 3.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.03–3.08) in nondiabetes and 1.14 (95% CI 1.08–1.20) in diabetes patients. The adjusted OR of TWA glucose of 180 mg/dL were 4.20 (95% CI 4.07–4.33) and 1.49 (1.41–1.57) in patients with no diabetes and patients with diabetes, respectively. The adjusted ORs of TWA glucose of 80 mg/dL compared with 100 mg/dL were 1.74 (95% CI 1.57–1.92) in nondiabetes and 1.36 (95% CI 1.12–1.66) in patients with diabetes. The glucose ranges associated with a below-average risk of mortality were 80–120 mg/dL and 90–150 mg/dL for nondiabetes and diabetes patients, respectively. Hypoglycemia was associated with increased hospital mortality in both groups but to a lesser extent in diabetic patients. Glucose variability was positively associated with hospital mortality in nondiabetics. Conclusions Time-weighted average glucose, hypoglycemia, and glucose variability had different impacts on clinical outcomes in patients with and without diabetes. Compared with nondiabetic patients, diabetic patients showed a more blunted response to hypo- and hyperglycemia and glucose variability. Glycemic control strategies should be reconsidered to avoid both hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01769-4.
| S-EPMC9288031 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe utilization of video laryngoscopy (VL) has demonstrated superiority over direct laryngoscopy (DL) for intubation in surgical settings. However, its effectiveness in the intensive care unit and emergency department settings remains uncertain.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VL versus DL in critically ill patients. Critical setting was defined as emergency department and intensive care unit. This systematic review and meta-analysis followed Cochrane and PRISMA recommendations. R version 4.3.1 was used for statistical analysis and heterogeneity was examined with I2 statistics. All outcomes were submitted to random-effect models.ResultsOur meta-analysis of 14 RCTs, compromising 3981 patients assigned to VL (n = 2002) or DL (n = 1979). Compared with DL, VL significantly increased successful intubations on the first attempt (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04-1.20; p < 0.01; I2 = 82%). Regarding adverse events, VL reduced the number of esophageal intubations (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.24-0.80; p < 0.01; I2 = 0%) and incidence of aspiration episodes (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.41-0.96; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%) compared to DL.ConclusionVL is a more effective and safer strategy compared with DL for increasing successful intubations on the first attempt and reducing esophageal intubations in critically ill patients. Our findings support the routine use of VL in critically ill patients. Registration CRD42023439685 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023439685 . Registered 6 July 2023.
| S-EPMC10759602 | biostudies-literature