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:BackgroundDiabetes mellitus (DM) increases the risk of developing tuberculosis (TB), and optimal glycemic control has been shown to reduce the risk of complications and improve the TB treatment outcomes in patients with DM.ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate the role of glycemic control in improving TB treatment outcomes among patients with DM.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of oral glycemic control in patients with TB who have DM. Outcomes of interest were radiological findings, treatment success, sputum positivity, and mortality. Evaluations were reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs using weighted random-effects models.ResultsThe analysis included 6919 patients from 7 observational studies. Our meta-analysis showed significant differences between patients with optimal glycemic control and those with poor glycemic control with regard to improved treatment outcomes (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.25; P=.02; I²=65%), reduced sputum positivity (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09-0.61; P=.003; I²=66%), and fewer cavitary lesions (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.51-0.68; P<.001; I²=0%) in radiological findings. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of mortality (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.22-1.49; P=.25; I²=0%), multilobar involvement (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.22-1.49; P=.25; I²=0%) on radiologic examination, and upper lobe (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76-1.17; P=.58; I²=0%) and lower lobe (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.48-2.30; P=.91; I²=75%) involvement on radiologic examination.ConclusionsWe concluded that optimal glycemic control is crucial for reducing susceptibility, minimizing complications, and improving treatment outcomes in patients with TB with DM. Emphasizing effective health management and health care strategies are essential in achieving this control. Integrating comprehensive care among patients with TB with DM will enhance patient outcomes and alleviate the burden of disease in this population.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42023427362; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=427362.

Project description:This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of probiotics for glycemic control in adults with impaired glucose control, including prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases, and trial registries up to February 2019. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of participants with prediabetes or T2DM. Eligible trials compared probiotics versus either placebo, no intervention, or comparison probiotics, or compared synbiotics versus prebiotics. Primary outcomes were mean change in fasting blood glucose (FBG) and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to short term (<12 wk) and long term (≥12 wk). We performed meta-analyses using the random-effects model. We included 28 RCTs (1947 participants). Overall, probiotics reduced FBG more than the placebo/no intervention group with a mean difference (MD) of -12.99 mg/dL (95% CI: -23.55, -2.42; P value: 0.016) over the short term; and -2.99 mg/dL (95% CI: -5.84, -0.13; P value: 0.040) over the long term. There was also some evidence for reduced HbA1c in the probiotics group at both short term (MD: -0.17; 95% CI: -0.37, 0.02; P value: 0.084) and long term (MD: -0.14; 95% CI: -0.34, 0.06; P value: 0.172), however, these did not reach statistical significance possibly because only a few trials reported HbA1c as an outcome. Subgroup analyses showed a greater reduction in HbA1c in participants not receiving insulin therapy than those receiving insulin therapy. Furthermore, the effect of probiotics on the reduction of FBG was more pronounced in participants with FBG >130 mg/dL and those not receiving insulin therapy than their counterparts. Probiotics were also effective in lowering serum cholesterol over the short and long term. In conclusion, we found that probiotics may have a glucose-lowering effect in T2DM participants. The effect appeared to be stronger in participants with poorly controlled diabetes and those not on insulin therapy. Systematic review registration: CRD42019121682.

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

Tweets