Hyperglycemia occurs commonly in patients admitted to medical intensive care units (MICUs). Whether real-time (RT) continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves glycemic control and variability and reduces hypoglycemia in severely ill MICU patients with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II) score of ≥20 has not been studied.
Subjects and Methods:
Thirty-five patients (66 ± 10 years of age; APACHE-II score, 28 ± 6) were randomly assigned to RT-CGM (n = 16) using the GlucoDay®S (A. Menarini Diagnostics, Florence, Italy) device or to blinded CGM. Insulin was infused using a modified Yale protocol targeting a blood glucose level between 80 and 120 mg/dL. Outcome measures were percentage of time in normoglycemia (80–110 mg/dL) and in hypoglycemia (<60 mg/dL), glycemic variability (SD, coefficient of variation, mean amplitude of glucose excursions, and mean of daily differences), and CGM accuracy (error grid analyses, Bland–Altman bias plot, and mean absolute relative deviation).
Results:
During 96 h of monitoring, glycemia reached target (80–110 mg/dL) in 37 ± 15%, was between 70 and 180 mg/dL in 91 ± 10%, and <60 mg/dL in 2 ± 2% of the time. In the RT-CGM group glycemia averaged 119 ± 17 mg/dL versus 122 ± 11 mg/dL in the control group. Parameters of glucose variability and percentages of time at target glycemia and in hypoglycemia were similar between groups. GlucoDayS values and arterial glycemia correlated well, with 98.6% of data falling in Zones A and B of the error grid analysis. Mean absolute relative devation was 11.2%.
Conclusions:
RT-CGM did not ameliorate glucose control or variability; neither did it reduce the number of hypoglycemic events, but our insulin infusion protocol led to overall good glucose control without a significant hypoglycemia risk, making further improvement difficult.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
De BlockC, Manuel-y-KeenoyB, RogiersP, et al.: Glucose control and use of continuous glucose monitoring in the intensive care unit: a critical review. Curr Diabetes Rev, 2008; 4:234–244.
2.
KavanaghBP, McCowenKC: Glycemic control in the ICU. N Engl J Med, 2010; 363:2540–2546.
3.
Van den BergheG, WoutersP, WeekersF, et al.: Intensive insulin therapy in the critically ill patients. N Engl J Med, 2001; 345:1359–1367.
4.
Van den BergheG, WilmerA, HermansG, et al.: Intensive insulin therapy in the medical ICU. N Engl J Med, 2006; 354:449–461.
5.
BrunkhorstFM, EngelC, BloosF, et al.: German Competence Network Sepsis (SepNet). Intensive insulin therapy and pentastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med, 2008; 358:125–139.
6.
PreiserJC, DevosP, Ruiz-SantanaS, et al.: A prospective randomised multi-centre controlled trial on tight glucose control by intensive insulin therapy in adult intensive care units: the Glucontrol study. Intensive Care Med, 2009; 35:1738–1748.
7.
FinferS, ChittockDR, SuSY, et al.: Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med, 2009; 360:1283–1297.
8.
EgiM, BellomoR, StachowskiE, et al.: Variability of blood glucose concentration and short-term mortality in critically ill patients. Anesthesiology, 2006; 105:244–252.
9.
KrinsleyJS: Glycemic variability: a strong independent predictor of mortality in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med, 2008; 36:3008–3013.
10.
MeyfroidtG, KeenanDM, WangX, et al.: Dynamic characteristics of blood glucose time series during the course of critical illness: effects of intensive insulin therapy and relative association with mortality. Crit Care Med, 2010; 38:1021–1029.
11.
HermanidesJ, VriesendorpTM, BosmanRJ, et al.: Glucose variability is associated with intensive care unit mortality. Crit Care Med, 2010; 38:838–842.
12.
JacobiJ, BircherN, KrinsleyJ, et al.: Guidelines for the use of an insulin infusion for the management of hyperglycemia in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med, 2012; 40:3251–3276.
13.
KanjiS, SinghA, TierneyM, et al.: Standardization of intravenous insulin therapy improves the efficiency and safety of blood glucose control in critically ill adults. Intensive Care Med, 2004; 30:804–810.
14.
WilsonM, WeinrebJ, HooGW: Intensive insulin therapy in critical care: a review of 12 protocols. Diabetes Care, 2007; 30:1005–1011.
15.
ShettyS, InzucchiSE, GoldbergPA, et al.: Adapting to the new consensus guidelines for managing hyperglycemia during critical illness: the updated Yale insulin infusion protocol. Endocr Pract, 2012; 18:363–370.
16.
HolzingerU, WarszawskaJ, KitzbergerR, et al.: Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in critically ill patients: a prospective randomized trial. Diabetes Care, 2010; 33:467–472.
17.
De BlockC, Manuel-y-KeenoyB, Van GaalL, et al.: Intensive insulin therapy in the intensive care unit: assessment by continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care, 2006; 29:1750–1756.
18.
HolzingerU, WarszawskaJ, KitzbergerR, et al.: Impact of shock requiring norepinephrine on the accuracy and reliability of subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring. Intensive Care Med, 2009; 35:1383–1389.
19.
LogtenbergSJ, KleefstraN, SnellenFT, et al.: Pre- and postoperative accuracy and safety of a real-time continuous glucose monitoring system in cardiac surgical patients: a randomized pilot study. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2009; 11:31–37.
20.
BrunnerR, KitzbergerR, MiehslerW, et al.: Accuracy and reliability of a subcutaneous continuous glucose-monitoring system in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med, 2011; 39:659–664.
21.
SiegelaarSE, BarwariT, HermanidesJ, et al.: Microcirculation and its relation to continuous subcutaneous glucose sensor accuracy in cardiac surgery patients in the intensive care unit. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2013; 146:1283–1289.
22.
KnausWA, DraperEA, WagnerDP, et al.: APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med, 1985; 13:818–829.
23.
VincentJL, MorenoR, TakalaJ, et al.: The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med, 1996; 22:707–710.
24.
RodbardD: The challenges of measuring glycemic variability. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2012; 6:712–715.
25.
ServiceFJ, MolnarGD, RosevearJW, et al.: Mean amplitude of glycemic excursions, a measure of diabetic instability. Diabetes, 1970; 19:644–655.
26.
McDonnellCM, DonathSM, VidmarSI, et al.: A novel approach to continuous glucose analysis utilizing glycemic variation. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2005; 7:253–263.
27.
MolnarGD, TaylorWF, HoMM: Day to day variation of continuously monitored glycemia: a further measure of diabetic instability. Diabetologia, 1972; 8:342–348.
28.
KovatchevBP, CoxDJ, Gonder-FrederickLA, et al.: Assessment of risk for severe hypoglycemia among adults with IDDM: validation of the Low Blood Glucose Index. Diabetes Care, 1998; 21:1870–1875.
29.
KovatchevBP, ShieldsD, BretonM: Graphical and numerical evaluation of continuous glucose sensing time lag. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2009; 11:139–143.
30.
ClarkeWL, CoxD, Gonder-FrederickLA, et al.: Evaluating clinical accuracy of systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose. Diabetes Care, 1987; 10:622–628.
31.
ParkesJL, SlatinSL, PardoS, et al.: A new consensus error grid to evaluate the clinical significance of inaccuracies in the measurement of blood glucose. Diabetes Care, 2000; 23:1143–1148.
32.
SchauppL, PlankJ, KöhlerG, et al.: Prediction of glucose concentration in post-cardiothoracic surgery patients using continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2011; 13:127–134.
33.
KrinsleyJS, PreiserJC: Time in blood glucose range 70 to 140 mg/dl >80% is strongly associated with increased survival in non-diabetic critically ill adults. Crit Care, 2015; 19:179.
34.
JunejaR, RoudebushC, KumarN, et al.: Utilization of a computerized intravenous infusion program to control blood glucose in the intensive care unit. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2007; 9:232–240.
35.
MorrisAH, OrmeJJr, TruwitJD, et al.: A replicable method for blood glucose control in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med, 2008; 36:1787–1795.
36.
ChaseJG, ShawG, Le CompteA, et al.: Implementation and evaluation of the SPRINT protocol for tight glycaemic control in critically ill patients: a clinical practice change. Crit Care, 2008; 12:R49.
37.
van HerpeT, MesottenD, WouterPJ, et al.: LOGIC-insulin algorithm-guided versus nurse-directed blood glucose control during critical illness. The LOGIC-1 single-center, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Diabetes Care, 2013; 36:188–194.
38.
KulnikR, PlankJ, PachlerC, et al.: Evaluation of implementation of a fully automated algorithm (enhanced model predictive control) in an interaction infusion pump system for establishment of tight glycemic control in medical intensive care unit patients. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2008; 2:963–970.
39.
BoydJC, BrunsDE: Effects of measurement frequency on analytical quality required for glucose measurements in intensive care units: assessments by simulation models. Clin Chem, 2014; 60:644–655.
40.
WilinskaME, HovorkaR: Glucose control in the intensive care unit by use of continuous glucose monitoring: what level of measurement error is acceptable?. Clin Chem, 2014; 60:1500–1509.
41.
Van HerpeT, De MoorB, Van den BergheG, et al.: Modeling of effect of glucose sensor error on insulin dosage and glucose bolus computed by LOGIC-insulin. Crit Chem, 2014; 60:1510–1518.
42.
FinferS, WernermanJ, PreiserJC, et al.: Clinical review: consensus recommendations on measurement of blood glucose and reporting glycemic control in critically ill adults. Crit Care, 2013; 17:229.
43.
BrunnerR, AdelsmayrG, HerknerH, et al.: Glycemic variability and glucose complexity in critically ill patients: a retrospective analysis of continuous glucose monitoring data. Crit Care, 2012; 16:R175.
44.
De BlockCEM, Manuel-y-KeenoyB, RogiersP, et al.: Intensive insulin therapy in the intensive care unit: assessment by continuous glucose monitoring. Response to Radermecker. Diabetes Care, 2006; 29:2763–2764.
