Publication

A Comparison Study of Continuous Insulin Infusion Protocols in the Medical Intensive Care Unit: Computer-Guided Vs. Standard Column-Based Algorithms

Downloadable Content

Persistent URL
Last modified
  • 02/20/2025
Type of Material
Authors
    Christopher A. Newton, Emory UniversityDawn Smiley, Emory UniversityBruce W. Bode, Piedmont HospitalAbbas E. Kitabchi, University of TennesseePaul C. Davidson, Piedmont HospitalSol Jacobs, Emory UniversityR. Dennis Steed, Southeastern Endocrine & DiabetesFrankie Stentz, University of TennesseeLimin Peng, Emory UniversityPatrick Mulligan, Emory UniversityAmado X. Freire, University of TennesseeAngel Temponi, Emory UniversityGuillermo Umpierrez, Emory University
Language
  • English
Date
  • 2010-10
Publisher
  • Wiley: 12 months
Publication Version
Copyright Statement
  • © 2010 Society of Hospital Medicine.
Final Published Version (URL)
Title of Journal or Parent Work
ISSN
  • 1553-5592
Volume
  • 5
Issue
  • 8
Start Page
  • 432
End Page
  • 437
Grant/Funding Information
  • Dr. Umpierrez is supported by research grants from the American Diabetes Association (7-03-CR-35), and National Institutes of Health: U01 DK074556-01 and General Clinical Research Center (CTSA) Grant M01 RR-00039.
  • This investigator-initiated study was supported by an unrestricted grant from sanofi-aventis.
Abstract
  • PURPOSE To compare the safety and efficacy of continuous insulin infusion (CII) via a computer-guided and a standard paper form protocol in a medical intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS Multicenter randomized trial of 153 ICU patients randomized to CII using the Glucommander (n = 77) or a standard paper protocol (n = 76). Both protocols used glulisine insulin and targeted blood glucose (BG) between 80 mg/dL and 120 mg/dL. RESULTS The Glucommander resulted in a lower mean BG value (103 ± 8.8 mg/dL vs. 117 ± 16.5 mg/dL, P < 0.001) and in a shorter time to reach BG target (4.8 ± 2.8 vs.7.8 hours ± 9.1 hours, P < 0.01), and once at target resulted in a higher percentage of BG readings within target (71.0 ± 17.0% vs. 51.3 ± 19.7%, P < 0.001) than the standard protocol. Mean insulin infusion rate in the Glucommander was similar to the standard protocol (P = 0.12). The percentages of patients with ≥1 episode of BG <40 mg/dL and <60 mg/dL were 3.9% and 42.9% in the Glucommander and 5.6% and 31.9% in the standard, respectively [P = not significant (NS)]. Repeated measures analyses show that the probabilities of BG reading <40 mg/dL or <60 mg/dL were not significantly different between groups (P = 0.969, P = 0.084) after accounting for within-patient correlations with or without adjusting for time effect. There were no differences between groups in the length of hospital stay (P = 0.704), ICU stay (P = 0.145), or inhospital mortality (P = 0.561). CONCLUSION Both treatment algorithms resulted in significant improvement in glycemic control in critically ill patients in the medical ICU. The computer-based algorithm resulted in tighter glycemic control without an increased risk of hypoglycemic events compared to the standard paper protocol.
Author Notes
  • Correspondence: Guillermo E. Umpierrez, MD, Professor of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, 49 Jesse Hill Jr. Drive, Atlanta, GA 30303; Telephone: 404-778-1665, Fax: 404-778-1661, Email: geumpie@emory.edu
Keywords
Research Categories
  • Health Sciences, Medicine and Surgery

Tools

Relations

In Collection:

Items