Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Comparison of three protocols for tight glycemic control in cardiac surgery patients

J. Bláha, P. Kopecký, M. Matias, R. Hovorka, J. Kunstýř, T. Kotulák, M. Lipš, D. Rubeš, M. Stříteský, J. Lindner, M. Semrád, M. Haluzík

. 2009 ; 32 (5) : 757-761.

Language English Country United States

Document type Comparative Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Grant support
NR9224 MZ0 CEP Register

Digital library NLK
Full text - Část
Source

E-resources Online Full text

NLK Free Medical Journals from 1978
ProQuest Central from 1996-07-01 to 2013-07-31
Open Access Digital Library from 1978-01-01 to 6 months ago
Open Access Digital Library from 2000-01-01 to 6 months ago
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost) from 1978-01-01
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest) from 1996-07-01 to 2013-07-31
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) from 1996-07-01 to 2013-07-31
Family Health Database (ProQuest) from 1996-07-01 to 2013-07-31
Health Management Database (ProQuest) from 1996-07-01 to 2013-07-31
Public Health Database (ProQuest) from 1996-07-01 to 2013-07-31

OBJECTIVE: We performed a randomized trial to compare three insulin-titration protocols for tight glycemic control (TGC) in a surgical intensive care unit: an absolute glucose (Matias) protocol, a relative glucose change (Bath) protocol, and an enhanced model predictive control (eMPC) algorithm. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 120 consecutive patients after cardiac surgery were randomly assigned to the three protocols with a target glycemia range from 4.4 to 6.1 mmol/l. Intravenous insulin was administered continuously or in combination with insulin boluses (Matias protocol). Blood glucose was measured in 1- to 4-h intervals as requested by the protocols. RESULTS: The eMPC algorithm gave the best performance as assessed by time to target (8.8 +/- 2.2 vs. 10.9 +/- 1.0 vs. 12.3 +/- 1.9 h; eMPC vs. Matias vs. Bath, respectively; P < 0.05), average blood glucose after reaching the target (5.2 +/- 0.1 vs. 6.2 +/- 0.1 vs. 5.8 +/- 0.1 mmol/l; P < 0.01), time in target (62.8 +/- 4.4 vs. 48.4 +/- 3.28 vs. 55.5 +/- 3.2%; P < 0.05), time in hyperglycemia >8.3 mmol/l (1.3 +/- 1.2 vs. 12.8 +/- 2.2 vs. 6.5 +/- 2.0%; P < 0.05), and sampling interval (2.3 +/- 0.1 vs. 2.1 +/- 0.1 vs. 1.8 +/- 0.1 h; P < 0.05). However, time in hypoglycemia risk range (2.9-4.3 mmol/l) in the eMPC group was the longest (22.2 +/- 1.9 vs. 10.9 +/- 1.5 vs. 13.1 +/- 1.6; P < 0.05). No severe hypoglycemic episode (<2.3 mmol/l) occurred in the eMPC group compared with one in the Matias group and two in the Bath group. CONCLUSIONS: The eMPC algorithm provided the best TGC without increasing the risk of severe hypoglycemia while requiring the fewest glucose measurements. Overall, all protocols were safe and effective in the maintenance of TGC in cardiac surgery patients.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
03918naa 2200601 a 4500
001      
bmc11019687
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20221005142634.0
008      
110714s2009 xxu e eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.2337/dc08-1851 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)19196894
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $c ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Bláha, Jan, $d 1968- $7 xx0134727
245    10
$a Comparison of three protocols for tight glycemic control in cardiac surgery patients / $c J. Bláha, P. Kopecký, M. Matias, R. Hovorka, J. Kunstýř, T. Kotulák, M. Lipš, D. Rubeš, M. Stříteský, J. Lindner, M. Semrád, M. Haluzík
314    __
$a Department of Anaesthesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Medicine, Charles University in Prague, 1st Faculty of Medicine and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVE: We performed a randomized trial to compare three insulin-titration protocols for tight glycemic control (TGC) in a surgical intensive care unit: an absolute glucose (Matias) protocol, a relative glucose change (Bath) protocol, and an enhanced model predictive control (eMPC) algorithm. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 120 consecutive patients after cardiac surgery were randomly assigned to the three protocols with a target glycemia range from 4.4 to 6.1 mmol/l. Intravenous insulin was administered continuously or in combination with insulin boluses (Matias protocol). Blood glucose was measured in 1- to 4-h intervals as requested by the protocols. RESULTS: The eMPC algorithm gave the best performance as assessed by time to target (8.8 +/- 2.2 vs. 10.9 +/- 1.0 vs. 12.3 +/- 1.9 h; eMPC vs. Matias vs. Bath, respectively; P < 0.05), average blood glucose after reaching the target (5.2 +/- 0.1 vs. 6.2 +/- 0.1 vs. 5.8 +/- 0.1 mmol/l; P < 0.01), time in target (62.8 +/- 4.4 vs. 48.4 +/- 3.28 vs. 55.5 +/- 3.2%; P < 0.05), time in hyperglycemia >8.3 mmol/l (1.3 +/- 1.2 vs. 12.8 +/- 2.2 vs. 6.5 +/- 2.0%; P < 0.05), and sampling interval (2.3 +/- 0.1 vs. 2.1 +/- 0.1 vs. 1.8 +/- 0.1 h; P < 0.05). However, time in hypoglycemia risk range (2.9-4.3 mmol/l) in the eMPC group was the longest (22.2 +/- 1.9 vs. 10.9 +/- 1.5 vs. 13.1 +/- 1.6; P < 0.05). No severe hypoglycemic episode (<2.3 mmol/l) occurred in the eMPC group compared with one in the Matias group and two in the Bath group. CONCLUSIONS: The eMPC algorithm provided the best TGC without increasing the risk of severe hypoglycemia while requiring the fewest glucose measurements. Overall, all protocols were safe and effective in the maintenance of TGC in cardiac surgery patients.
590    __
$a bohemika - dle Pubmed
650    _2
$a mladiství $7 D000293
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a senioři nad 80 let $7 D000369
650    _2
$a algoritmy $7 D000465
650    _2
$a krevní glukóza $x metabolismus $7 D001786
650    _2
$a kardiochirurgické výkony $7 D006348
650    _2
$a homeostáza $7 D006706
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a hyperglykemie $x epidemiologie $x prevence a kontrola $7 D006943
650    _2
$a hypoglykemie $x epidemiologie $x prevence a kontrola $7 D007003
650    _2
$a intravenózní infuze $7 D007262
650    _2
$a inzulin $x aplikace a dávkování $x terapeutické užití $7 D007328
650    _2
$a péče o pacienty v kritickém stavu $x metody $7 D003422
650    _2
$a jednotky intenzivní péče $x normy $7 D007362
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a pooperační péče $7 D011182
650    _2
$a mladý dospělý $7 D055815
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
655    _2
$a Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural $7 D052061
700    1_
$a Kopecký, Petr $7 xx0135702
700    1_
$a Matias, Michal. $7 xx0227689
700    1_
$a Hovorka, Roman, $d 1960- $7 xx0134449
700    1_
$a Kunstýř, Jan $7 xx0083634
700    1_
$a Kotulák, Tomáš $7 xx0108024
700    1_
$a Lipš, Michal. $7 xx0232731
700    1_
$a Rubeš, David. $7 _AN027034
700    1_
$a Stříteský, Martin $7 xx0106193
700    1_
$a Lindner, Jaroslav, $d 1957- $7 mzk2005269705
700    1_
$a Semrád, Michal $7 xx0092194
700    1_
$a Haluzík, Martin, $d 1970- $7 xx0000707
773    0_
$t Diabetes Care $w MED00001380 $g Roč. 32, č. 5 (2009), s. 757-761
856    41
$u https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671097/ $y plný text volně přístupný
910    __
$a ABA008 $b x $y 2 $z 0
990    __
$a 20110715115343 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20221005142630 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 864515 $s 729566
BAS    __
$a 3
BMC    __
$a 2009 $x MED00001380 $b 32 $c 5 $d 757-761 $m Diabetes care $n Diabetes Care
GRA    __
$a NR9224 $p MZ0
LZP    __
$a 2011-3B09/Bjvme

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...