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:BackgroundBlood 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsIn 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.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.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:BackgroundINTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV) is a fully automated closed-loop mode of ventilation for use in critically ill patients. Evidence for benefit of INTELLiVENT-ASV in comparison to ventilation that is not fully automated with regard to duration of ventilation and quality of breathing is largely lacking. We test the hypothesis that INTELLiVENT-ASV shortens time spent on a ventilator and improves the quality of breathing.MethodsThe "Effects of Automated Closed-loop VenTilation versus Conventional Ventilation on Duration and Quality of Ventilation" (ACTiVE) study is an international, multicenter, two-group randomized clinical superiority trial. In total, 1200 intensive care unit (ICU) patients with an anticipated duration of ventilation of > 24 h will be randomly assigned to one of the two ventilation strategies. Investigators screen patients aged 18 years or older at start of invasive ventilation in the ICU. Patients either receive automated ventilation by means of INTELLiVENT-ASV, or ventilation that is not automated by means of a conventional ventilation mode. The primary endpoint is the number of days free from ventilation and alive at day 28; secondary endpoints are quality of breathing using granular breath-by-breath analysis of ventilation parameters and variables in a time frame of 24 h early after the start of invasive ventilation, duration of ventilation in survivors, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and mortality rates in the ICU and hospital, and at 28 and 90 days.DiscussionACTiVE is one of the first randomized clinical trials that is adequately powered to compare the effects of automated closed-loop ventilation versus conventional ventilation on duration of ventilation and quality of breathing in invasively ventilated critically ill patients. The results of ACTiVE will support intensivist in their choices regarding the use of automated ventilation.Trial registrationACTiVE is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier: NCT04593810 ) on 20 October 2020.

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.