Dataset Information

Optimal glycemic control in neurocritical care patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Hyper- and hypoglycemia are strongly associated with adverse outcomes in critical care. Neurologically injured patients are a unique subgroup, where optimal glycemic targets may differ, such that the findings of clinical trials involving heterogeneous critically ill patients may not apply. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intensive insulin therapy with conventional glycemic control among patients with traumatic brain injury, ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, anoxic encephalopathy, central nervous system infections or spinal cord injury. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs, involving 1248 neurocritical care patients, were included. Glycemic targets with intensive insulin ranged from 70-140 mg/dl (3.9-7.8 mmol/L), while conventional protocols aimed to keep glucose levels below 144-300 mg/dl (8.0-16.7 mmol/L). Tight glycemic control had no impact on mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.83-1.17; p = 0.88), but did result in fewer unfavorable neurological outcomes (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84-1.00; p = 0.04). However, improved outcomes were only observed when glucose levels in the conventional glycemic control group were permitted to be relatively high [threshold for insulin administration > 200 mg/dl (> 11.1 mmol/L)], but not with more intermediate glycemic targets [threshold for insulin administration 140-180 mg/dl (7.8-10.0 mmol/L)]. Hypoglycemia was far more common with intensive therapy (RR 3.10; 95% CI 1.54-6.23; p = 0.002), but there was a large degree of heterogeneity in the results of individual trials (Q = 47.9; p<0.0001; I2 = 75%). Mortality was non-significantly higher with intensive insulin in studies where the proportion of patients developing hypoglycemia was large (> 33%) (RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.79-1.75; p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive insulin therapy significantly increases the risk of hypoglycemia and does not influence mortality among neurocritical care patients. Very loose glucose control is associated with worse neurological recovery and should be avoided. These results suggest that intermediate glycemic goals may be most appropriate.

SUBMITTER: Kramer AH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3682305 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Optimal glycemic control in neurocritical care patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kramer Andreas H AH Roberts Derek J DJ Zygun David A DA

Critical care (London, England) 20121022 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>Hyper- and hypoglycemia are strongly associated with adverse outcomes in critical care. Neurologically injured patients are a unique subgroup, where optimal glycemic targets may differ, such that the findings of clinical trials involving heterogeneous critically ill patients may not apply.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intensive insulin therapy with conventional glycemic control among patien ...[more]

PMID: 23082798

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Aerobic training (AT) improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, the role of the progression of training variables remains unclear. The objective of this review was to analyze the effects of progressive AT (PAT) and non-progressive AT (NPAT) on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS:Data sources used were PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and LILACS. Studies that evaluated the effect of at least 12 weeks of PAT and NPAT compared to a control condition on HbA1c levels in type 2 diabetes patients were eligible for analysis. Two independent reviewers screened the search results, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Effect sizes (ESs) were calculated using the standardized mean difference in HbA1c levels between the intervention and control groups using a random-effect model. RESULTS:Of 5848 articles retrieved, 24 randomized clinical trials (825 participants) were included. Among the included studies, 92% reported to have performed a randomization process, 8% presented allocation concealment, 21% reported blinding of outcome assessment, and 38% reported complete outcome data. AT reduced HbA1c levels by 0.65% (ES: - 1.037; 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 1.386, - 0.688; p < 0.001). The reduction in HbA1c induced by PAT was 0.84% (ES: - 1.478; 95% CI - 2.197, - 0.759; p < 0.001), and NPAT was 0.45% (ES: - 0.920; 95% CI - 1.329, - 0.512; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis of the different forms of progression showed a reduction in HbA1c levels of 0.94% (ES: - 1.967; 95% CI - 3.783, - 0.151; p = 0.034) with progression in volume, 0.41% (ES: - 1.277; 95% CI - 2.499, - 0.056; p = 0.040) with progression in intensity, and 1.27% (ES: - 1.422; 95% CI - 2.544, - 0.300; p = 0.013) with progression in both volume and intensity. Subgroup analysis of the different modalities of AT showed a reduction of 0.69% (ES: - 1.078; 95% CI - 1.817, - 0.340; p = 0.004) with walking and/or running and of 1.12% (ES: - 2.614; 95% CI - 4.206, - 1.022; p = 0.001) with mixed protocols while progressive training was adopted. In non-progressive protocols, a significant HbA1c reduction was only found with walking and/or running (- 0.43%; ES: - 1.292; 95% CI - 1.856, - 0.72; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION:The effect of PAT on glycemic control was greater than that of NPAT, especially when volume and intensity were progressively incremented throughout the interventions.

Dataset Information

Optimal glycemic control in neurocritical care patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Optimal glycemic control in neurocritical care patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure