The effect of a computer-assisted insulin protocol on glycemic control in a surgical intensive care unit

Applications of Clinical Decision Support Systems in Diabetes Care: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Providing comprehensive and individualized diabetes care remains a significant challenge in the face of the increasing complexity of diabetes management and a lack of specialized endocrinologists to support diabetes care. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are progressively being used to improve diabetes care, while many health care providers lack awareness and knowledge about CDSSs in diabetes care. A comprehensive analysis of the applications of CDSSs in diabetes care is still lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to summarize the research landscape, clinical applications, and impact on both patients and physicians of CDSSs in diabetes care.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review following the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A search was conducted in 7 electronic databases to identify the clinical applications of CDSSs in diabetes care up to June 30, 2022. Additional searches were conducted for conference abstracts from the period of 2021-2022. Two researchers independently performed the screening and data charting processes.

RESULTS

Of 11,569 retrieved studies, 85 (0.7%) were included for analysis. Research interest is growing in this field, with 45 (53%) of the 85 studies published in the past 5 years. Among the 58 (68%) out of 85 studies disclosing the underlying decision-making mechanism, most CDSSs (44/58, 76%) were knowledge based, while the number of non-knowledge-based systems has been increasing in recent years. Among the 81 (95%) out of 85 studies disclosing application scenarios, the majority of CDSSs were used for treatment recommendation (63/81, 78%). Among the 39 (46%) out of 85 studies disclosing physician user types, primary care physicians (20/39, 51%) were the most common, followed by endocrinologists (15/39, 39%) and nonendocrinology specialists (8/39, 21%). CDSSs significantly improved patients' blood glucose, blood pressure, and lipid profiles in 71% (45/63), 67% (12/18), and 38% (8/21) of the studies, respectively, with no increase in the risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

CDSSs are both effective and safe in improving diabetes care, implying that they could be a potentially reliable assistant in diabetes care, especially for physicians with limited experience and patients with limited access to medical resources.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.37766/inplasy2022.9.0061.

Hypoglycemia Prevention by Algorithm Design During Intravenous Insulin Infusion

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review examines algorithm design features that may reduce risk for hypoglycemia while preserving glycemic control during intravenous insulin infusion. We focus principally upon algorithms in which the assignment of the insulin infusion rate (IR) depends upon maintenance rate of insulin infusion (MR) or a multiplier.

RECENT FINDINGS

Design features that may mitigate risk for hypoglycemia include use of a mid-protocol bolus feature and establishment of a low BG threshold for temporary interruption of infusion. Computer-guided dosing may improve target attainment without exacerbating risk for hypoglycemia. Column assignment (MR) within a tabular user-interpreted algorithm or multiplier may be specified initially according to patient characteristics and medical condition with revision during treatment based on patient response. We hypothesize that a strictly increasing sigmoidal relationship between MR-dependent IR and BG may reduce risk for hypoglycemia, in comparison to a linear relationship between multiplier-dependent IR and BG. Guidelines are needed that curb excessive up-titration of MR and recommend periodic pre-emptive trials of MR reduction. Future research should foster development of recommendations for "protocol maxima" of IR appropriate to patient condition.

Hypoglycemia Reduction Strategies in the ICU

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We reviewed the strategies associated with hypoglycemia risk reduction among critically ill non-pregnant adult patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hypoglycemia in the ICU has been associated with increased mortality in a number of studies. Insulin dosing and glucose monitoring rules, response to impending hypoglycemia, use of computerization, and attention to modifiable factors extrinsic to insulin algorithms may affect the risk for hypoglycemia. Recurring use of intravenous (IV) bolus doses of insulin in insulin-resistant cases may reduce reliance upon higher IV infusion rates. In order to reduce the risk for hypoglycemia in the ICU, caregivers should define responses to interruption of continuous carbohydrate exposure, incorporate transitioning strategies upon initiation and interruption of IV insulin, define modifications of antihyperglycemic therapy in the presence of worsening renal function or chronic kidney disease, and anticipate the effects traceable to other medications and substances. Institutional and system-wide quality improvement efforts should assign priority to hypoglycemia prevention.

A comparison of two insulin infusion protocols in the medical intensive care unit by continuous glucose monitoring

Background

Achieving good glycemic control in intensive care units (ICU) requires a safe and efficient insulin infusion protocol (IIP). We aimed to compare the clinical performance of two IIPs (Leuven versus modified Yale protocol) in patients admitted to medical ICU, by using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). This is a pooled data analysis of two published prospective randomized controlled trials. CGM monitoring was performed in 57 MICU patients (age 64 ± 12 years, APACHE-II score 28 ± 7, non-diabetic/diabetic: 36/21). The main outcome measures were percentage of time in normoglycemia (80–110 mg/dl) and in hypoglycemia (<60 mg/dl), and glycemic variability (standard deviation, coefficient of variation, mean amplitude of glucose excursions, mean of daily differences).

Results

Twenty-two subjects were treated using the Leuven protocol and 35 by the Yale protocol; >63,000 CGM measurements were available. The percentage of time in normoglycemia (80–110 mg/dl) was higher (37 ± 15 vs. 26 ± 11%, p = 0.001) and percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia was lower (0[0–2] vs. 5[1–8]%, p = 0.001) in the Yale group. Median glycemia did not differ between groups (118[108–128] vs. 128[106–154] mg/dl). Glycemic variability was less pronounced in the Yale group (median SD 28[21–37] vs. 47[31–71] mg/dl, p = 0.001; CV 23[19–31] vs. 36[26–50]%, p = 0.001; MODD 35[26–41] vs. 60[33–94] mg/dl, p = 0.001). However, logistic regression could not identify type of IIP, diabetes status, age, BMI, or APACHE-II score as independent parameters for strict glucose control.

Conclusions

The Yale protocol provided better average glycemia, more time spent in normoglycemia, less time in hypoglycemia, and less glycemic variability than the Leuven protocol, but was not independently associated with strict glycemic control.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13613-016-0214-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.