Dataset Information

Individualised versus conventional glucose control in critically-ill patients: the CONTROLING study-a randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Hyperglycaemia is an adaptive response to stress commonly observed in critical illness. Its management remains debated in the intensive care unit (ICU). Individualising hyperglycaemia management, by targeting the patient's pre-admission usual glycaemia, could improve outcome.

Methods

In a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, critically-ill adults were considered for inclusion. Patients underwent until ICU discharge either individualised glucose control by targeting the pre-admission usual glycaemia using the glycated haemoglobin A1c level at ICU admission (IC group), or conventional glucose control by maintaining glycaemia below 180 mg/dL (CC group). A non-commercial web application of a dynamic sliding-scale insulin protocol gave to nurses all instructions for glucose control in both groups. The primary outcome was death within 90 days.

Results

Owing to a low likelihood of benefit and evidence of the possibility of harm related to hypoglycaemia, the study was stopped early. 2075 patients were randomized; 1917 received the intervention, 942 in the IC group and 975 in the CC group. Although both groups showed significant differences in terms of glycaemic control, survival probability at 90-day was not significantly different (IC group: 67.2%, 95% CI [64.2%; 70.3%]; CC group: 69.6%, 95% CI [66.7%; 72.5%]). Severe hypoglycaemia (below 40 mg/dL) occurred in 3.9% of patients in the IC group and in 2.5% of patients in the CC group (p = 0.09). A post hoc analysis showed for non-diabetic patients a higher risk of 90-day mortality in the IC group compared to the CC group (HR 1.3, 95% CI [1.05; 1.59], p = 0.018).

Conclusion

Targeting an ICU patient's pre-admission usual glycaemia using a dynamic sliding-scale insulin protocol did not demonstrate a survival benefit compared to maintaining glycaemia below 180 mg/dL.

SUBMITTER: Bohe J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8550173 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:The Space Glucose Control (SGC) system is a computer-assisted device combining infusion pumps with the enhanced Model Predictive Control algorithm to achieve the target blood glucose (BG) level safely. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of glycemic control by SGC with customized BG target range of 5.8-8.9 mmol/L in the critically ill patients.It is a randomized controlled trial of seventy critically ill patients with mechanical ventilation and hyperglycemia (BG ? 9.0 mmol/L). Thirty-six patients in the SGC group and 34 in the routine glucose management group were observed for three consecutive days. Target BG for both groups was 5.8-8.9 mmol/L. The primary outcome was the percentage time in the target range.The percentage time within BG target range in the SGC group (69 ± 15%) was significantly higher than in the routine management group (52 ± 24%; P< 0.01). No measurement was ?2.2 mmol/L, and there was only one episode of hypoglycemia (2.3-3.3 mmol/L) in each group. The average BG was significantly lower in the SGC group (7.8 ± 0.7 mmol/L) than in the routine management group (9.1 ± 1.6 mmol/L, P< 0.001). Target BG level was reached earlier in the SGC group than routine management group (2.5 ± 2.9 vs. 12.1 ± 15.3 h, P= 0.001). However, the SGC group performed worse for daily insulin requirement (59.8 ± 39.3 vs. 28.4 ± 36.7 U, P= 0.001) and sampling interval (2.0 ± 0.5 vs. 3.7 ± 0.5 h, P< 0.001) than the routine management group did. Multiple linear regression showed that the intervention group remained a significant individual predictor (P < 0.001) of the percentage time in target range.The SGC system, with a BG target of 5.8-8.9 mmol/L, resulted in effective and reliable glycemic control with few hypoglycemic episodes in critically ill patients with mechanical ventilation and hyperglycemia. However, the workload was increased.http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT 02491346; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02491346?term=NCT02491346&cond=Hyperglycemia&cntry1=ES%3ACN&rank=1.

Project description:BackgroundShorter-duration antibiotic treatment is sufficient for a range of bacterial infections, but has not been adequately studied for bloodstream infections. Our systematic review, survey, and observational study indicated equipoise for a trial of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment for bloodstream infections; a pilot randomized clinical trial (RCT) was a necessary next step to assess feasibility of a larger trial.MethodsWe conducted an open, pilot RCT of antibiotic treatment duration among critically ill patients with bloodstream infection across 11 intensive care units (ICUs). Antibiotic selection, dosing and route were at the discretion of the treating team; patients were randomized 1:1 to intervention arms consisting of two fixed durations of treatment - 7 versus 14 days. We recruited adults with a positive blood culture yielding pathogenic bacteria identified while in ICU. We excluded patients with severe immunosuppression, foci of infection with an established requirement for prolonged treatment, single cultures with potential contaminants, or cultures yielding Staphylococcus aureus or fungi. The primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment rate and adherence to treatment duration protocol. Secondary outcomes included 90-day, ICU and hospital mortality, relapse of bacteremia, lengths of stay, mechanical ventilation and vasopressor duration, antibiotic-free days, Clostridium difficile, antibiotic adverse events, and secondary infection with antimicrobial-resistant organisms.ResultsWe successfully achieved our target sample size (n = 115) and average recruitment rate of 1 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.3-1.5) patient/ICU/month. Adherence to treatment duration was achieved in 89/115 (77%) patients. Adherence differed by underlying source of infection: 26/31 (84%) lung; 18/29 (62%) intra-abdominal; 20/26 (77%) urinary tract; 8/9 (89%) vascular-catheter; 4/4 (100%) skin/soft tissue; 2/4 (50%) other; and 11/12 (92%) unknown sources. Patients experienced a median (IQR) 14 (8-17) antibiotic-free days (of the 28 days after blood culture collection). Antimicrobial-related adverse events included hepatitis in 1 (1%) patient, Clostridium difficile infection in 4 (4%), and secondary infection with highly resistant microorganisms in 10 (9%). Ascertainment was complete for all study outcomes in ICU, in hospital and at 90 days.ConclusionIt is feasible to conduct a RCT to determine whether 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment is associated with comparable 90-day survival.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , identifier: NCT02261506 . Registered on 26 September 2014.

Project description:BackgroundFever improves pathogen control at a significant metabolic cost. No randomized clinical trials (RCT) have compared fever treatment thresholds in critically ill children. We performed a pilot RCT to determine whether a definitive trial of a permissive approach to fever in comparison to current restrictive practice is feasible in critically ill children with suspected infection.MethodsAn open, parallel-group pilot RCT with embedded mixed methods perspectives study in four UK paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and associated retrieval services. Participants were emergency PICU admissions aged > 28 days to < 16 years receiving respiratory support and supplemental oxygen. Subjects were randomly assigned to permissive (antipyretic interventions only at ≥ 39.5 °C) or restrictive groups (antipyretic interventions at ≥ 37.5 °C) whilst on respiratory support. Parents were invited to complete a questionnaire or take part in an interview. Focus groups were conducted with staff at each unit. Outcomes were measures of feasibility: recruitment rate, protocol adherence and acceptability, between group separation of temperature and safety.ResultsOne hundred thirty-eight children met eligibility criteria of whom 100 (72%) were randomized (11.1 patients per month per site) without prior consent (RWPC). Consent to continue in the trial was obtained in 87 cases (87%). The mean maximum temperature (95% confidence interval) over the first 48 h was 38.4 °C (38.2-38.6) in the restrictive group and 38.8 °C (38.6-39.1) in the permissive group, a mean difference of 0.5 °C (0.2-0.8). Protocol deviations were observed in 6.8% (99/1438) of 6-h time periods and largely related to patient comfort in the recovery phase. Length of stay, duration of organ support and mortality were similar between groups. No pre-specified serious adverse events occurred. Staff (n = 48) and parents (n = 60) were supportive of the trial, including RWPC. Suggestions were made to only include invasively ventilated children for the duration of intubation.ConclusionUncertainty around the optimal fever threshold for antipyretic intervention is relevant to many emergency PICU admissions. A more permissive approach was associated with a modest increase in mean maximum temperature. A definitive trial should focus on the most seriously ill cases in whom antipyretics are rarely used for their analgesic effects alone.Trial registrationISRCTN16022198 . Registered on 14 August 2017.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Daily sedative interruption and intermittent sedation are effective in abbreviating the time on mechanical ventilation. Whether one is superior to the other has not yet been determined. Our aim was to compare daily interruption and intermittent sedation during the mechanical ventilation period in a low nurse staffing ICU. METHODS:Adult patients expected to need mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours were randomly assigned, in a single center, either to daily interruption of continuous sedative and opioid infusion or to intermittent sedation. In both cases, our goal was to maintain a Sedation Agitation Scale (SAS) level of 3 or 4; that is patients should be calm, easily arousable or awakened with verbal stimuli or gentle shaking. Primary outcome was ventilator-free days in 28 days. Secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality, incidence of delirium, nurse workload, self-extubation and psychological distress six months after ICU discharge. RESULTS:A total of 60 patients were included. There were no differences in the ventilator-free days in 28 days between daily interruption and intermittent sedation (median: 24 versus 25 days, P?=?0.160). There were also no differences in ICU mortality (40 versus 23.3%, P?=?0.165), hospital mortality (43.3 versus 30%, P?=?0.284), incidence of delirium (30 versus 40%, P?=?0.472), self-extubation (3.3 versus 6.7%, P?=?0.514), and psychological stress six months after ICU discharge. Also, the nurse workload was not different between groups, but it was reduced on day 5 compared to day 1 in both groups (Nurse Activity Score (NAS) in the intermittent sedation group was 54 on day 1 versus 39 on day 5, P?<?0.001; NAS in daily interruption group was 53 on day 1 versus 38 on day 5, P?<?0.001). Fentanyl and midazolam total dosages per patient were higher in the daily interruption group. The tidal volume was higher in the intermittent sedation group during the first five days of ICU stay. CONCLUSIONS:There was no difference in the number of ventilator-free days in 28 days between both groups. Intermittent sedation was associated with lower sedative and opioid doses. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00824239.