Incidence and Impact of Dysglycemia in Patients with Sepsis Under Moderate Glycemic Control

Staff knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding glycaemic management in adult intensive care units: A national survey

BACKGROUND

Hyperglycaemia is common in critically ill adult patients. Many studies have identified the content, methods, and effects of glycaemic control but have not explored the effects of knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) on glycaemic control in critically ill adults. Various factors also influence the KAP of intensive care unit (ICU) staff.

AIMS

To assess KAP regarding glucose management for critically ill adults among nurses and medical professionals and identify the factors that influence their KAP in ICUs.

METHODS

A multicentre cross-sectional survey.

RESULTS

In total, 403/459 (response rate: 87.8%) participants from ICUs in nine tertiary hospitals in China participated in this study, 82.4% of whom were female and 93.4% of whom were nurses. The mean work experience was 8.88 years, and the mean critical care experience was 6.59 years. The scoring rate for the three dimensions of knowledge, attitudes, and practices were 82.35%, 87.69%, and 76%, respectively. We did not find any other factors affecting the KAP scores except for the level of knowledge awareness (p < 0.001), awareness of the importance (p < 0.001), and training for glucose control (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

ICU staff KAP regarding glycaemic control in critically ill adults among ICU professionals were acceptable in China. However, ICU professionals' current knowledge regarding nutrition, glucose variability, and skills related to glucose management could be improved.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

ICU educators should provide more skills-related training for healthcare professionals in the glycaemic management of critically ill adults. Moreover, the process of managing blood glucose in adult ICU patients is a collaborative, multidisciplinary team effort, with monitoring and feedback required during implementation.

2023 Update on Sepsis and Septic Shock in Adult Patients: Management in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Sepsis/septic shock is a life-threatening and time-dependent condition that requires timely management to reduce mortality. This review aims to update physicians with regard to the main pillars of treatment for this insidious condition.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE were searched from inception with special attention paid to November 2021-January 2023.

RESULTS

The management of sepsis/septic shock is challenging and involves different pathophysiological aspects, encompassing empirical antimicrobial treatment (which is promptly administered after microbial tests), fluid (crystalloids) replacement (to be established according to fluid tolerance and fluid responsiveness), and vasoactive agents (e.g., norepinephrine (NE)), which are employed to maintain mean arterial pressure above 65 mmHg and reduce the risk of fluid overload. In cases of refractory shock, vasopressin (rather than epinephrine) should be combined with NE to reach an acceptable level of pressure control. If mechanical ventilation is indicated, the tidal volume should be reduced from 10 to 6 mL/kg. Heparin is administered to prevent venous thromboembolism, and glycemic control is recommended. The efficacy of other treatments (e.g., proton-pump inhibitors, sodium bicarbonate, etc.) is largely debated, and such treatments might be used on a case-to-case basis.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of sepsis/septic shock has significantly progressed in the last few years. Improving knowledge of the main therapeutic cornerstones of this challenging condition is crucial to achieve better patient outcomes.

Acute glycemic variability and risk of mortality in patients with sepsis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute glycemic variability (GV) has been correlated with the severity of sepsis. The aim of the study was to evaluate the potential association between acute GV and mortality risk in patients with sepsis.

METHODS

Cohort studies comparing the risk of death within 3 months between septic patients with higher versus lower acute GV were retrieved by systematic search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Wanfang and CNKI databases. We used a random-effect model to pool the data by incorporating the between-study heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the stability of the findings.

RESULTS

Ten studies including 4296 patients were available for the meta-analysis. Pooled results showed that septic patients with higher acute GV had significantly increased mortality risk compared to those with lower acute GV, as evidenced by results using different parameters including standard deviation of blood glucose (SDBG, risk ratio [RR]: 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-2.24, p < 0.001; I² = 0%), coefficient of variation of blood glucose (RR: 1.91, 95% CI 1.57-2.31, p < 0.001; I² = 0%), mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (RR: 1.81. 95% CI 1.36-2.40, p < 0.001; I² = 0%), and glycemic lability index (RR: 2.52, 95% CI 1.72-3.68, p < 0.001; I² = 0%). Sensitivity analyses by excluding one study at a time did not significantly affect the results (p all < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher acute GV may be a predictor of mortality risk in patients with sepsis.