Why Have So Many Intravascular Glucose Monitoring Devices Failed?

Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Glycemic Control for Critically Ill Children and Adults 2024

RATIONALE

Maintaining glycemic control of critically ill patients may impact outcomes such as survival, infection, and neuromuscular recovery, but there is equipoise on the target blood levels, monitoring frequency, and methods.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose was to update the 2012 Society of Critical Care Medicine and American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) guidelines with a new systematic review of the literature and provide actionable guidance for clinicians.

PANEL DESIGN

The total multiprofessional task force of 22, consisting of clinicians and patient/family advocates, and a methodologist applied the processes described in the ACCM guidelines standard operating procedure manual to develop evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach (GRADE) methodology. Conflict of interest policies were strictly followed in all phases of the guidelines, including panel selection and voting.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes question related to glycemic management in critically ill children (≥ 42 wk old adjusted gestational age to 18 yr old) and adults, including triggers for initiation of insulin therapy, route of administration, monitoring frequency, role of an explicit decision support tool for protocol maintenance, and methodology for glucose testing. We identified the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as a good practice statement. In addition, "In our practice" statements were included when the available evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, but the panel felt that describing their practice patterns may be appropriate. Additional topics were identified for future research.

RESULTS

This guideline is an update of the guidelines for the use of an insulin infusion for the management of hyperglycemia in critically ill patients. It is intended for adult and pediatric practitioners to reassess current practices and direct research into areas with inadequate literature. The panel issued seven statements related to glycemic control in unselected adults (two good practice statements, four conditional recommendations, one research statement) and seven statements for pediatric patients (two good practice statements, one strong recommendation, one conditional recommendation, two "In our practice" statements, and one research statement), with additional detail on specific subset populations where available.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidelines panel achieved consensus for adults and children regarding a preference for an insulin infusion for the acute management of hyperglycemia with titration guided by an explicit clinical decision support tool and frequent (≤ 1 hr) monitoring intervals during glycemic instability to minimize hypoglycemia and against targeting intensive glucose levels. These recommendations are intended for consideration within the framework of the patient's existing clinical status. Further research is required to evaluate the role of individualized glycemic targets, continuous glucose monitoring systems, explicit decision support tools, and standardized glycemic control metrics.

Accuracy and stability of an arterial sensor for glucose monitoring in a porcine model using glucose clamp technique

Intravascular glucose sensors have the potential to improve and facilitate glycemic control in critically ill patients and might overcome measurement delay and accuracy issues. This study investigated the accuracy and stability of a biosensor for arterial glucose monitoring tested in a hypo- and hyperglycemic clamp experiment in pigs. 12 sensors were tested over 5 consecutive days in 6 different pigs. Samples of sensor and reference measurement pairs were obtained every 15 minutes. 1337 pairs of glucose values (range 37–458 mg/dl) were available for analysis. The systems met ISO 15197:2013 criteria in 99.2% in total, 100% for glucose <100 mg/dl (n = 414) and 98.8% for glucose ≥100 mg/dl (n = 923). The mean absolute relative difference (MARD) during the entire glycemic range of all sensors was 4.3%. The MARDs within the hypoglycemic (<70 mg/dl), euglycemic (≥70–180 mg/dl) and hyperglycemic glucose ranges (≥180 mg/dl) were 6.1%, 3.6% and 4.7%, respectively. Sensors indicated comparable performance on all days investigated (day 1, 3 and 5). None of the systems showed premature failures. In a porcine model, the performance of the biosensor revealed a promising performance. The transfer of these results into a human setting is the logical next step.

Is it possible to constantly and accurately monitor blood sugar levels, in people with Type 1 diabetes, with a discrete device (non-invasive or invasive)?

Real-time continuous glucose monitors using subcutaneous needle-type sensors continue to develop. The limitations of currently available systems, however, include time lag behind changes in blood glucose, the invasive nature of such systems, and in some cases, their accuracy. Non-invasive techniques have been developed, but, to date, no commercial device has been successful. A key research priority for people with Type 1 diabetes identified by the James Lind Alliance was to identify ways of monitoring blood glucose constantly and accurately using a discrete device, invasive or non-invasive. Integration of such a sensor is important in the development of a closed-loop system and the technology must be rapid, selective and acceptable for continuous use by individuals. The present review provides an update on existing continuous glucose-sensing technologies, and an overview of emergent techniques, including their accuracy and limitations.

Near-Continuous Glucose Monitoring Makes Glycemic Control Safer in ICU Patients

OBJECTIVES

Tight glycemic control using intermittent blood glucose measurements is associated with a risk of hypoglycemia. Glucose concentrations can now be measured near continuously (every 5-15 min). We assessed the quality and safety of glycemic control guided by a near-continuous glucose monitoring system in ICU patients.

DESIGN

Prospective, cluster-randomized, crossover study.

SETTING

Thirty-five-bed medico-surgical department of intensive care with four separate ICUs.

PATIENTS

Adult patients admitted to the department and expected to stay for at least 3 days were considered for inclusion if they had persistent hyperglycemia (blood glucose > 150 mg/dL) up to 6 hours after admission and/or were receiving insulin therapy.

INTERVENTIONS

A peripheral venous catheter was inserted in all patients and connected to a continuous glucose monitoring sensor (GlucoClear; Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). The four ICUs were randomized in pairs in a crossover design to glycemic control using unblinded or blinded continuous glucose monitoring monitors. The insulin infusion rate was adjusted to keep blood glucose between 90 and 150 mg/dL using the blood glucose values displayed on the continuous glucose monitor (continuous glucose monitoring group-unblinded units) or according to intermittent blood glucose readings (intermittent glucose monitoring group-blinded units).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The quality and safety of glycemic control were assessed using the proportion of time in range, the frequency of blood glucose less than 70 mg/dL, and the time spent with blood glucose less than 70 mg/dL (TB70), using blood glucose values measured by the continuous glucose monitoring device. Seventy-seven patients were enrolled: 39 in the continuous glucose monitoring group and 38 in the intermittent glucose monitoring group. A total of 43,107 blood glucose values were recorded. The time in range was similar in the two groups. The incidence of hypoglycemia (8/39 [20.5%] vs 15/38 [39.5%]) and the TB70 (0.4% ± 0.9% vs 1.6% ± 3.4%; p < 0.05) was lower in the continuous glucose monitoring than in the intermittent glucose monitoring group.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a continuous glucose monitoring-based strategy decreased the incidence and severity of hypoglycemia, thus improving the safety of glycemic control.

Assessment of changes in blood glucose concentration with intravascular microdialysis

Blood glucose and its variability of is a major prognostic factor associated with morbidity. We hypothesized that intravenous microdialysis incorporated in a central venous catheter (CVC) would be interchangeable with changes in blood glucose measured by the reference method using a blood gas analyzer. Microdialysis and central venous blood glucose measurements were simultaneously recorded in high-risk cardiac surgical patients. The correlation between absolute values was determined by linear regression and the Bland-Altman test for repeated measurements was used to compare bias, precision, and limits of agreement. Changes in blood glucose measurement were evaluated by four-quadrant plot and trend interchangeability methods (TIM). In the 23 patients analyzed, the CVC was used as part of standard care with no complications. The correlation coefficient for absolute values (N = 99) was R = 0.91 (P < 0.001). The bias, precision and limits of agreement were - 9.1, 17.4 and - 43.2 to 24.9 mg/dL, respectively. The concordance rate for changes in blood glucose measurements (N = 77) was 85% with the four-quadrant plot. The TIM showed that 14 (18%) changes of blood glucose measurements were uninterpretable. Among the remaining 63 (82%) interpretable changes, 23 (37%) were interchangeable, 13 (20%) were in the gray zone, and 27 (43%) were not interchangeable. Microdialysis using a CVC appears to provide imprecise absolute blood glucose values with risk of insulin misuse. Moreover, only one third of changes in blood glucose measurements were interchangeable with the reference method using the TIM.