Is intensive glucose control bad for critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Yao RQ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7097913 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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:BACKGROUND:Hyperglycemia 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. METHODS:A 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. RESULTS:A 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). CONCLUSIONS:Among 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 REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registration number CRD42017074039 .
| S-EPMC5835325 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Physical therapy can prevent functional impairments and improve the quality of life of patients after hospital discharge. However, the effect of early mobilization on patients with a critical illness remains unclear. This study was performed to assess the evidence available regarding the effect of early mobilization on critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS:Electronic databases were searched from their inception to March 21, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comprising critically ill patients who received early mobilization were included. The methodological quality and risk of bias of each eligible trial were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Data were extracted using a standard collection form each included study, and processed using the Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) or inverse-variance (I-V) test in the STATA v12.0 statistical software. RESULTS:A total of 1,898 records were screened. Twenty-three RCTs comprising 2,308 critically ill patients were ultimately included. Early mobilization decreased the incidence of ICU-acquired weakness (ICU-AW) at hospital discharge (three studies, 190 patients, relative risk (RR): 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.40, 0.90]; p = 0.013, I2 = 0.0%), increased the number of patients who were able to stand (one study, 50 patients, 90% vs. 62%, p = 0.02), increased the number of ventilator-free days (six studies, 745 patients, standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.17, 95% CI [0.02, 0.31]; p = 0.023, I2 = 35.5%) during hospitalization, increased the distance the patient was able to walk unassisted (one study, 104 patients, 33.4 (0-91.4) meters vs. 0 (0-30.4) meters, p = 0.004) at hospital discharge, and increased the discharged-to-home rate (seven studies, 793 patients, RR: 1.16, 95% CI [1.00, 1.34]; p = 0.046). The mortality (28-day, ICU and hospital) and adverse event rates were moderately increased by early mobilization, but the differences were statistically non-significant. However, due to the substantial heterogeneity among the included studies, and the low quality of the evidence, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution. Publication bias was not identified. CONCLUSIONS:Early mobilization appears to decrease the incidence of ICU-AW, improve the functional capacity, and increase the number of ventilator-free days and the discharged-to-home rate for patients with a critical illness in the ICU setting.
| S-EPMC6776357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveIntensive insulin therapy is associated with the risk of hypoglycemia and increased costs of material and personnel. We therefore evaluated the safety and efficiency of a computer-assisted glucose control protocol in a large population of critically ill patients.Design and settingObservational cohort study in three intensive care units (32 beds) in a 1,300-bed university teaching hospital.PatientsAll 2,800 patients admitted to the surgical, neurosurgical, and cardiothoracic units; the study period started at each ICU after implementation of Glucose Regulation for Intensive Care Patients (GRIP), a freely available computer-assisted glucose control protocol.Measurements and resultsWe analysed compliance in relation to recommended insulin pump rates and glucose measurement frequency. Patients were on GRIP-ordered pump rates 97% of time. Median measurement time was 5min late (IQR 20min early to 34 min late). Hypoglycemia was uncommon (7% of patients for mild hypoglycemia, < 3.5mmol/l; 0.86% for severe hypoglycemia, < 2.2 mmol/l). Our predefined target range (4.0-7.5 mmol/l) was reached after a median of 5.6 h (IQR 0.2-11.8) and maintained for 89% (70-100%) of the remaining stay at the ICU. The number of measurements needed was 5.9 (4.8-7.3) per patient per day. In-hospital mortality was 10.1%.ConclusionsOur computer-assisted glucose control protocol provides safe and efficient glucose regulation in routine intensive care practice. A low rate of hypoglycemic episodes was achieved with a considerably lower number of glucose measurements than used in most other schemes.
| S-EPMC2491417 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the relation between delirium in critically ill patients and their outcomes in the short term (in the intensive care unit and in hospital) and after discharge from hospital.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO, with no language restrictions, up to 1 January 2015.Eligibility criteria for selection studiesReports were eligible for inclusion if they were prospective observational cohorts or clinical trials of adults in intensive care units who were assessed with a validated delirium screening or rating system, and if the association was measured between delirium and at least one of four clinical endpoints (death during admission, length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and any outcome after hospital discharge). Studies were excluded if they primarily enrolled patients with a neurological disorder or patients admitted to intensive care after cardiac surgery or organ/tissue transplantation, or centered on sedation management or alcohol or substance withdrawal. Data were extracted on characteristics of studies, populations sampled, identification of delirium, and outcomes. Random effects models and meta-regression analyses were used to pool data from individual studies.ResultsDelirium was identified in 5280 of 16,595 (31.8%) critically ill patients reported in 42 studies. When compared with control patients without delirium, patients with delirium had significantly higher mortality during admission (risk ratio 2.19, 94% confidence interval 1.78 to 2.70; P<0.001) as well as longer durations of mechanical ventilation and lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and in hospital (standard mean differences 1.79 (95% confidence interval 0.31 to 3.27; P<0.001), 1.38 (0.99 to 1.77; P<0.001), and 0.97 (0.61 to 1.33; P<0.001), respectively). Available studies indicated an association between delirium and cognitive impairment after discharge.ConclusionsNearly a third of patients admitted to an intensive care unit develop delirium, and these patients are at increased risk of dying during admission, longer stays in hospital, and cognitive impairment after discharge.
| S-EPMC4454920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION: Tracheostomy is one of the more commonly performed procedures in critically ill patients yet the optimal method of performing tracheostomies in this population remains to be established. The aim of this study was to systematically review and quantitatively synthesize all randomized clinical trials (RCTs), comparing elective percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and surgical tracheostomy (ST) in adult critically ill patients with regards to major short and long term outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Additionally, bibliographies and selected conference proceedings were reviewed, and experts in the field and manufacturers of two PDT kits were contacted. Randomized clinical trials comparing any method of elective PDT to ST that included critically ill adults and reported at least one clinically relevant outcome were included. Data extracted included trial characteristics, measures of study validity, and clinically relevant outcomes. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs involving 1,212 patients were included. Most PDTs used a multiple dilator technique and were performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). The pooled odds ratio (OR) for wound infection was 0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.16 to 0.49, p < 0.0005), indicating a significant reduction with PDT compared to ST. Overall, PDT was equivalent to ST for bleeding, major peri-procedural and long-term complications; however, subgroup analysis suggested PDT resulted in a lower incidence of bleeding (OR = 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01)) and death (OR = 0.71 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.0, p = 0.05)) when the STs were performed in the operating theatre. CONCLUSION: PDT reduces the overall incidence of wound infection and may further reduce clinical relevant bleeding and mortality when compared with ST performed in the operating theatre. PDT, performed in the ICU, should be considered the procedure of choice for performing elective tracheostomies in critically ill adult patients.
| S-EPMC1550905 | biostudies-other
Project description:OBJECTIVE:This meta-analysis aimed to examine the impact of antipyretic therapy on mortality in critically ill septic adults. DATA SOURCES:Literature searches were implemented in Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 2016. STUDY SELECTION:Inclusion criteria were observational or randomized studies of septic patients, evaluation of antipyretic treatment, mortality reported, and English-language version available. Studies were excluded if they enrolled pediatric patients, patients with neurologic injury, or healthy volunteers. Criteria were applied by two independent reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION:Two reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated methodologic quality. Outcomes included mortality, frequency of shock reversal, acquisition of nosocomial infections, and changes in body temperature, heart rate, and minute ventilation. Randomized and observational studies were analyzed separately. DATA SYNTHESIS:Eight randomized studies (1,507 patients) and eight observational studies (17,432 patients) were analyzed. Antipyretic therapy did not reduce 28-day/hospital mortality in the randomized studies (relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.77-1.13; I = 0.0%) or observational studies (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.51; I = 76.1%). Shock reversal (relative risk, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.68-1.90; I = 51.6%) and acquisition of nosocomial infections (relative risk, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.61-2.09; I = 61.0%) were also unchanged. Antipyretic therapy decreased body temperature (mean difference, -0.38°C; 95% CI, -0.63 to -0.13; I = 84.0%), but not heart rate or minute ventilation. CONCLUSIONS:Antipyretic treatment does not significantly improve 28-day/hospital mortality in adult patients with sepsis.
| S-EPMC5389594 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionTelemedicine extends intensivists' reach to critically ill patients cared for by other physicians. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of telemedicine on patients' outcomes.MethodsWe searched electronic databases through April 2012, bibliographies of included trials, and indexes and conference proceedings in two journals (2001 to 2012). We selected controlled trials or observational studies of critically ill adults or children, examining the effects of telemedicine on mortality. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data on outcomes (mortality and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital) and methodologic quality. We used random-effects meta-analytic models unadjusted for case mix or cluster effects and quantified between-study heterogeneity by using I² (the percentage of total variability across studies attributable to heterogeneity rather than to chance).ResultsOf 865 citations, 11 observational studies met selection criteria. Overall quality was moderate (mean score on Newcastle-Ottawa scale, 5.1/9; range, 3 to 9). Meta-analyses showed that telemedicine, compared with standard care, is associated with lower ICU mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65 to 0.96; nine studies, n = 23,526; I2 = 70%) and hospital mortality (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.94; nine studies, n = 47,943; I² = 72%). Interventions with continuous patient-data monitoring, with or without alerts, reduced ICU mortality (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.95; six studies, n = 21,384; I² = 74%) versus those with remote intensivist consultation only (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.20 to 2.07; three studies, n = 2,142; I2 = 71%), but effects were statistically similar (interaction P = 0.74). Effects were also similar in higher (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.02) versus lower (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.19; interaction, P = 0.53) quality studies. Reductions in ICU and hospital length of stay were statistically significant (weighted mean difference (telemedicine-control), -0.62 days; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.04 days and -1.26 days; 95% CI, -2.49 to -0.03 days, respectively; I2 > 90% for both).ConclusionsTelemedicine was associated with lower ICU and hospital mortality among critically ill patients, although effects varied among studies and may be overestimated in nonrandomized designs. The optimal telemedicine technology configuration and dose tailored to ICU organization and case mix remain unclear.
| S-EPMC3580710 | 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:IntroductionGlutamine (GLN) has been suggested to have a beneficial influence on outcomes of critically ill patients. However, recent large-scale trials have suggested harm associated with GLN supplementation. Recently, systematic reviews on the use of parenteral GLN have been published; however, less information is available on the role of enteral GLN. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to study the effects of enteral GLN supplementation in patients with critical illness.MethodsWe identified randomized controlled trials conducted from 1980 to 2014 with enterally administered GLN in adult critically ill patients. Studies of parenteral GLN only or combined enteral-parenteral GLN were excluded. The methodological quality of studies was scored, and trial data were statistically combined. We examined a priori the treatment effects in subgroups of trials of burn and trauma patients.ResultsA total of 11 studies involving 1079 adult critically ill patients and enteral GLN supplementation were identified. Enteral GLN supplementation was not associated with a reduction of hospital mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.36; p = 0.74), infectious complications (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79-1.10; p = 0.39) or stay in the intensive care unit (weighted mean difference [WMD] -1.36 days, 95% CI -5.51 to 2.78; p = 0.52). However, there was a significant reduction in hospital stay (WMD 4.73 days, 95% CI -8.53 to -0.90; p = 0.02). In the subset of studies of patients with burns, enteral GLN supplementation was associated with significant reductions in hospital mortality (RR 0.19, 95% 0.06-0.67; p = 0.010) and hospital stay (WMD -9.16, 95% CI -15.06 to -3.26; p = 0.002). There was no effect in trauma patients.ConclusionsEnteral GLN supplementation does not confer significant clinical benefit in critically ill patients, with the exception of reduced hospital stay. There may be a significant benefit in patients with burns, but data are sparse and larger randomized trials are warranted to confirm this effect.
| S-EPMC4539709 | biostudies-literature