The association of intravenous insulin and glucose infusion with intensive care unit and hospital mortality: a retrospective study

Perioperative Fully Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery: An Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Perioperative management of glucose levels remains challenging. We aimed to assess whether fully closed-loop subcutaneous insulin delivery would improve glycemic control compared with standard insulin therapy in insulin-requiring patients undergoing elective surgery.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a single-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Patients with diabetes (other than type 1) undergoing elective surgery were recruited from various surgical units and randomly assigned using a minimization schedule (stratified by HbA1c and daily insulin dose) to fully closed-loop insulin delivery with fast-acting insulin aspart (closed-loop group) or standard insulin therapy according to local clinical practice (control group). Study treatment was administered from hospital admission to discharge (for a maximum of 20 days). The primary end point was the proportion of time with sensor glucose in the target range (5.6-10.0 mmol/L).

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were enrolled and assigned to the closed-loop (n = 23) or the control (n = 22) group. One patient (closed-loop group) withdrew from the study before surgery and was not analyzed. Participants underwent abdominal (57%), vascular (23%), orthopedic (9%), neuro (9%), or thoracic (2%) surgery. The mean proportion of time that sensor glucose was in the target range was 76.7 ± 10.1% in the closed-loop and 54.7 ± 20.8% in the control group (mean difference 22.0 percentage points [95% CI 11.9; 32.0%]; P < 0.001). No episodes of severe hypoglycemia (<3.0 mmol/L) or hyperglycemia with ketonemia or any study-related adverse events occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of mixed elective surgery, the use of fully closed-loop subcutaneous insulin delivery improves glucose control without a higher risk of hypoglycemia.

Association between dysglycemia and mortality by diabetes status and risk factors of dysglycemia in critically ill patients: a retrospective study

AIMS

Dysglycemia, including the three domains hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and increased glycemic variability (GV), is associated with high mortality among critically ill patients. However, this association differs by diabetes status, and reports in this regard are limited. This study aimed to evaluate the associations between the three dysglycemia domains and mortality in critically ill patients by diabetes status and determined the contributing factors for dysglycemia.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 958 critically ill patients (admitted to the ICU) with or without DM. Dysglycemia was defined as abnormality of any of the three dimensions. We evaluated the effects of the three domains of glucose control on mortality using binary logistic regression and then adjusted for confounders. The associations between dysglycemia and other variables were investigated using cumulative logistic regression analysis.

RESULT

GV independently and similarly affected mortality in both groups after adjustment for confounders (DM: odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-1.08; p <0.001; non-DM: OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.11; p = 0.002). Hypoglycemia was strongly associated with ICU mortality among patients without DM (3.12; 1.76-5.53; p <0.001) and less so among those with DM (1.18; 0.49-2.83; p = 0.72). Hyperglycemia was non-significantly associated with mortality in both groups. However, the effects of dysglycemia seemed cumulative. The factors contributing to dysglycemia included disease severity, insulin treatment, glucocorticoid use, serum albumin level, total parenteral nutrition, duration of diabetes, elevated procalcitonin level, and need for mechanical ventilation and renal replacement therapy.

CONCLUSION

The association between the three dimensions of dysglycemia and mortality varied by diabetes status. Dysglycemia in critical patients is associated with excess mortality; however, glucose management in patients should be specific to the patient's need considering the diabetes status and broader dimensions. The identified factors for dysglycemia could be used for risk assessment in glucose management requirement in critically ill patients, which may improve clinical outcomes.

Preadmission Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients Had Increased Mortality in Intensive Care Units

AIM

To explore the clinical outcomes among preadmission insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in intensive care units (ICU).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective observational study, 578 T2DM patients admitted to ICU were recruited from March 2011 to February 2021, which were composed of 528 patients treated with insulin after ICU admission (including 300 preadmission non-insulin-treated and 228 preadmission insulin-treated patients) and 50 patients treated without insulin before and after ICU admission. Clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. Variables of age (± 10 years), gender, blood glucose >10 mmol/l on ICU admission, and original comorbidities were used for matching to get the 1:1 matched cohort. The Kaplan-Meier survival curves were graphed to describe the survival trend and Cox regression analysis was performed to get adjusted hazard ratio (HR).

RESULTS

Compared with the preadmission non-insulin-treated T2DM patients, preadmission insulin-treated T2DM patients had higher incidence of hypoglycemia [14.5% (33/228) vs 8.7% (26/300); p = 0.036]. In the 1:1 matched cohort, the preadmission insulin-treated T2DM patients had significantly increased mortality rate [30.0% (45/150) vs (16.0% (24/150)); adjusted HR, 1.68 (1.01-2.80)] than preadmission non-insulin-treated T2DM patients. Compared with T2DM patients treated without insulin before and after ICU admission, preadmission insulin-treated T2DM patients had higher mortality and longer length of ICU stay (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Preadmission insulin treatment was associated with increased mortality rate and longer length of ICU stay among T2DM patients in ICU. Preadmission insulin-treated T2DM patients might have worse clinical outcomes when they are critically ill.

Can functional electrical stimulation-assisted cycle ergometry replace insulin infusion in patients? A nested substudy in a randomized controlled trial with 6 months' follow-up

BACKGROUND

Functional electrical stimulation-assisted cycle ergometry (FESCE) can deliver active exercise to critically ill patients, including those who are sedated. Aerobic exercise is known to stimulate skeletal muscle glucose uptake. We asked whether FESCE can reduce intravenous insulin requirements and improve insulin sensitivity in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

METHOD

We performed an a priori-planned secondary analysis of data from an outcome-based randomized controlled trial (NCT02864745) of FESCE-based early-mobility program vs standard of care in mechanically ventilated patients. We analyzed glucose profile, glucose intake, and insulin requirements during ICU stay in all enrolled patients. In a nested subgroup, we performed hyperinsulinemic (120 mIU/min/m² ) euglycemic clamps at days 0, 7, and 180 (n = 30, 23, and 11, respectively).

RESULTS

We randomized 150 patients 1:1 to receive intervention or standard of care. Seventeen (23%) patients in each study arm had a history of diabetes. During ICU stay, patients received 137 ± 65 and 137 ± 88 g/day carbohydrate (P = .97), and 31 vs 35 (P = .62) of them required insulin infusion to maintain blood glucose 8.61 ± 2.82 vs 8.73 ± 2.67 mM (P = .75, n = 11,254). In those treated with insulin, median daily dose was 53 IU (interquartile range [IQR], 25-95) vs 62 IU (IQR, 26-96) in the intervention and control arm, respectively (P = .44). In the subgroup of patients undergoing hyperglycemic clamps, insulin sensitivities improved similarly and significantly from acute and protracted critical illness to 6 months after discharge.

CONCLUSION

The FESCE-based early-mobility program does not significantly reduce insulin requirements in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation.

The Efficacy of Intensive versus Conventional Insulin Therapy in Reducing Mortality and Morbidity in Medical and Surgical Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized Controlled Study

Context

Stress hyperglycemia in critically ill patients has been a matter of debate for years without any conclusive answer till date regarding glucose management and treatment thresholds.

Aims

We planned a study with an aim to compare the efficacy of intensive versus conventional insulin therapy in reducing the mortality and morbidity in critically ill patients. The primary objective was to compare mortality between the two groups. The secondary objective was to find out if intensive insulin therapy is better than conventional insulin therapy in terms of various outcomes such as infections and need for inotropes and transfusion requirements.

Settings and Design

It was a prospective randomized controlled study. The study population included 100 patients who received mechanical ventilation and admitted to the intensive care department of a tertiary care institute.

Subjects and Methods

Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: intensive insulin therapy (IIT) and conventional insulin therapy (CIT) to receive either intensive or conventional insulin therapy. Insulin infusion was started only when blood glucose levels exceeded 200 mg%. Blood glucose levels were maintained between 80 and 110 mg% in the IIG and between 180 and 200 mg% in the CIG.

Statistical Analysis Used

The data collected were analyzed separately for both the groups using Student's t-test and Chi-square test.

Results

The two groups were comparable in terms of baseline demographic data including age, sex, preadmission diabetic status, and HbA1c at the time of admission. The two groups were not comparable in terms of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II scores, and the difference between them was statistically significant with higher scores in the conventional group. The primary outcome, that is, mortality, was higher in the CIG with 29 patients (58%) versus 3 (6%) in the IIG (P = 0.02). The secondary outcomes were the measures of morbidity including infections, need for inotropic support, and need for blood transfusions, and these were significantly higher in the conventional group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

We conclude that tight glycemic control significantly lowers mortality and morbidity in critically ill patients, both surgical and medical. These benefits appear with the maintenance of tight blood glucose control of 80-110 mg.dL ^{- 1} and not due to administration of insulin.

Oral antidiabetes agents for the management of inpatient hyperglycaemia: so far, yet so close

BACKGROUND

Hyperglycaemia is an ongoing challenge in hospital settings and is associated with poor outcomes. Current recommendations for the management of inpatient hyperglycaemia suggest insulin as the main glucose-lowering treatment choice and limit the administration of oral antidiabetes agents to a small proportion of cases because of safety concerns.

AIM

To present and critically appraise the available evidence on the use of oral antidiabetes agents in the hospital setting and the risk-benefit balance of such an approach in the era of cardiovascular outcomes trials.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify relevant published work. Available evidence on the efficacy and the safety profile of oral agents in the context of their use in hospitalized individuals are summarized and discussed in this narrative review.

RESULTS

There is no robust evidence to suggest the use of metformin, thiazolidinediones, sulfonylureas and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in the hospital setting, although some of their effects on acute outcomes deserve further evaluation in future studies. However, the use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in inpatients with type 2 diabetes is supported by a few, well-designed, randomized controlled trials. These trials have demonstrated good safety and tolerability profiles, comparable to insulin glucose-lowering efficacy, and a reduction in insulin dose when dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are co-administered with insulin, in individuals with mild to moderate hyperglycaemia and a stable clinical condition.

CONCLUSION

The administration of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors to specific groups of inpatients might be a safe and effective alternative to insulin.