ICU Volume 11 - Issue 1 - Spring 2011 - Series

How Should We Control Blood Glucose in 2011?

Blood.jpg

Many studies, some already published a long time ago, have reported that hyperglycaemia (Dungan et al. 2009), or “dysglycaemia” (Smith et al. 2010) as some prefer, is an independent prognostic marker in acutely ill patients. For example, after cardiac surgery, glycaemia above 180 mg/dl, implying poor glucose control, was consistently and independently associated with an increased rate of postoperative infections and mortality (Furnary et al. 2003). The beneficial effects of lowering blood glucose to less than 150 mg/dl are well recognised and have been reported by retrospective analyses of large cohorts of critically ill patients (Falciglia et al. 2009).

The landmark Leuven I trial was a prospective, randomised controlled study that showed that “tight” glucose control (target blood glucose 80-110 mg/dl) improved survival and several secondary outcome variables (incidence of systemic infection, acute renal failure, need for transfusions polyneuropathy, duration of mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive care unit [ICU]) (van den Berghe et al. 2001). However, seven independent confirmatory studies failed to reproduce these results (Annane et al. 2010; Arabi et al. 2008; Brunkhorst et al. 2008; De La Rosa et al. 2008; Finfer et al. 2009; Preiser et al. 2009; van den Berghe et al. 2006a). In the largest study, the NICE-Sugar study, there was even a worse outcome associated with tight glucose control (Finfer et al. 2009). Because of the lack of external validity of the findings of the Leuven I trial, recent evidence-based guidelines no longer recommend a tight target for blood glucose in critically ill patients (Ichai et al. 2010; Moghissi et al. 2009). Expert opinion and actual clinical practice commonly use an intermediate threshold to start insulin therapy, most often 140-150 mg/dl (Krinsley et al. 2008; Vincent, 2010). The feasibility and safety of tighter glucose control cannot be guaranteed unless considerable technological improvements become available. 

The implementation of tight glucose control is a complex process, involving a number of important factors (Schultz et al. 2010). Each step of glucose control is critical, from the blood sampling, through choice of analyserand algorithm, to administration of the correct amount of insulin. Importantly, errors in insulin administration are the commonest therapeutic mistakes in the ICU (Garrouste- Orgeas et al. 2010). Moreover, certain physiologicalquestions related to glucose control in critically ill patients remain unanswered, but suggest that the ‘optimal’ blood glucose target is still undefined. Indeed, rather than being a fixed target for all patients, it is likely that the ‘ideal’ blood glucose concentration varies in individual patients. Based on these uncertainties and unresolvedissues, what changes and progress can we expect in the near future? How can we move forward?

Better Delineation of the Risks Associated with Tight Glucose Control

The price to pay for tight glucose control includes an increased risk of hypoglycaemia and additional workload for the nursing staff. The incidence of hypoglycaemia, defined as the percentage of patients who experienced at least one episode of blood glucose of < 40 mg/dl, increased by a mean factor of 6 in patients randomised to tight glucose control with in- tensive insulin therapy (Lacherade et al. 2009; Preiser et al. 2010). The mortality rate of the patients with hypoglycaemia was multiplied by a factor of 2.5 (Preiser 2009). Two independent sets of data (Egi et al. 2010)(Krinsley et al. Unpublished data) suggest that the occurrence of even mild hypoglycaemia (< 80 mg/dl) is associated with increased mortality rates. Recently, Duning et al reported subtle neurocognitive dysfunction in patients who experienced hypoglycaemia during their ICU stay (Duning et al. 2010). The thresholdused to define hypoglycaemia may, therefore, be different in ICU patients compared to the non-critically ill. In any case, avoidance of hypoglycaemia represents a key challenge during glucose control in the ICU. Likewise, high degrees of glucose variability, which are associated with poorer outcomes (Ali et al. 2008; Egi et al. 2006), are closely related to hypoglycaemia and its correction. Indeed, in vitro, large changes in glucose concentration of theculture medium of human cells is associated with cellular damage and increased oxidative stress and apoptosis (Risso et al. 2001). Hence, achievement of minimal glucose variability represents another major challenge of glucose control. A clinically relevant definition of glucose variability is also needed, as most of the many indices available have not been assessed in an ICU setting (Ali et al. 2009).

What is the Most Appropriate Glycaemic Target?

This key question is still unanswered. The most appropriate target is likely to be influenced by patient-related factors, such as the type and severity of critical illness and the medical history, and by ICU-related factors, e.g., staffing, available technology and local practice. Several lines of evidence support the absence of a universal ‘optimal’ blood glucose target in critically ill patients. In the ICU, the term ‘normoglycaemia’ is probably inappropriate for a blood glucose value between 80 and 110 mg/dl; these values are considered to rule out carbohydrate intolerance in fasting outpatients whereas critically ill patients undergo metabolic stress,are treated with medications that may increase blood glucose (catecholamines, steroids, etc) and are usually fed (Preiser 2008). Hyperglycaemia can also be viewed as a physiological consequence of the adaptive stress response (Dungan et al. 2009). 

Additional physiological evidence supports different optimal blood glucose targets in specific situations. After brain injury, hypoglycaemia (< 80 mg/dl) and moderate hyperglycaemia (> 150 mg/dl) are both associated with poor outcome (Oddo et al. 2008; Vespa 2008). In patients with sepsis, no benefit was associated with the achievement of tight glycaemic control (Brunkhorst et al. 2008). In addition, in the Leuven cohorts (van den Berghe et al. 2006b) as well as in the patients of the Glucontrol and NICE-SUGAR studies (Finfer et al. 2009; Preiser et al. 2009), tight glucose control was not beneficial in the subsets of patients with pre-existing diabetes.

Conversely, after cardiac surgery (two thirds of the patients in the Leuven I study), there was a clear benefit with tight glucose control (van den Berghe et al. 2001). Of interest, surgical patients treated with tight glucose control had a better outcome in surgical ICUs than surgical patients treated with tight glucose control in mixed ICUs (Friedrich et al. 2010). Taken together, these findings support different ‘optimal’ blood glucose concentrations according to patient- and ICU-related factors.

Blood Glucose Measurement

Wide variations exist in the techniques used to measure blood glucose, including sampling site and the device used. Although widely used in ICUs, the accuracy and reliability of commercially available point-ofcare (POC) devices are not sufficient, especially when capillary samples are used.

POC glucose readers use different measurement methods (amperometric or colorimetric reaction), enzymatic reactions (glucose oxidase or glucose dehydrogenase), calibration on total blood or on plasma, and different blood volumes, all of which lead to devicespecific limitations, interference, and technical constraints that need to be taken into ac count when interpreting a blood glucose value. The reliability of the results depends on the user’s knowledge of the device. Improved accuracy of POC devices is definitely needed in the lower ranges of blood glucose values, especially when capillary samples are used (Kanji et al. 2005; Vlasselaers et al. 2008). The current official requirements and international norms are based on data and therapeutic requirements for diabetic, but not critically ill patients. For example, the Clarke error grid introduced in 1987 and used to evaluate the therapeutic implications of inaccuracies of glucose readers (Clarke et al. 1987) is not adapted for insulin algorithms currently used in ICUs. Improvements in POC technology need to include the introduction of correction factors or compensation for interference and sampling site. Assessments of performance also need to be carried out in an ICU environment. 

Continuous glucose monitoring will probably represent a major step forward, initially for clinical research and later for clinical use. Some experience with subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring has already been reported (Brunner et al. 2011; Corstjens et al. 2006), but the accuracy of these devices is currently too low in haemodynamically unstable patients. The major hope lies in continuous intravascular glucose monitoring. Limited clinical data, using various techniques (enzymatic, microdialysis, optic fibre), have been published (Rooyackers et al. 2010), but several companies are currently developing new prototypes, which will be evaluated in the near future (Fahy et al. 2008; Joseph et al. 2009; Mraovic 2009). The methods by which these continuous glucose sensors are evaluated will hopefully also be standardised.

Insulin Algorithms

A large number of insulin algorithms are used today (Wilson et al. 2007). Use or misuse of these algorithms can partially explain the discrepancies in the results from the large clinical trials on tight glucose control. Although there is consensus regarding the preferential use of dynamic scales, the comparison of algorithm performance if not standardised (Eslami et al. 2008). Computer-based algorithms can improve the quality of glucose control (Juneja et al. 2009), as long as individual patient characteristics are incorporated and taken into account in the calculation of the insulin infusion rate. For example, Lonergan et al. (2006) developed and validated a protocol which included the actual insulin sensitivity. Using this protocol, the quality of glucose control in the Glucontrol study (Preiser et al. 2009) would have been improved (Suhaimi et al. 2010).

Closed-Loop Systems

The ultimate innovation in the field could be the development of closed-loop systems that mimic an artificial pancreas. In such techniques, (near-) continuously measured blood glucose values can be fed into computerised

systems which then adapt the insulin infusion rate accordingly, taking into account specific patient- and treatment-related variables. Preliminary data with closedloop systems have already been published, and suggest that this approach may decrease variability in blood glucose concentrations (Yatabe et al. 2011) but further clinical studies are needed to determine whether this effect can influence outcomes.

Conclusion

Much has changed in our approach to blood glucose concentrations in critically ill patients over the last decade. The Leuven studies encouraged us to pay greater attention to maintaining blood glucose at levels much lower than had previously been considered necessary. But the risks of tight glucose control then became apparent along with realisation that variability in blood glucose concentrations was also relevant to outcomes. The development of techniques to continuously monitor blood glucose levels will help follow blood glucose levels more closely and closed-loop systems by which insulin doses will be adjusted automatically according to continuous blood glucose readings and adapted to individual patient characteristics are just over the horizon. Until then, blood glucose levels below 150 mg/dl should be targeted and attempts made to limit variations in blood glucose levels as much as possible (Vincent 2010).

 

References:

Ali NA, Krinsley JS, Preiser JC. Glucose variability in critically ill patients. In: Vincent JL, editor. 2009 Yearbook of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine. Heidelberg: Springer, 2009: 728-737.

Ali NA, O'Brien JM, Jr., Dungan K, et al: Glucose variability and mortality in patients with sepsis. Crit Care Med 2008; 36:2316-2321.

Annane D, Cariou A, Maxime V, et al: Corticosteroid treatment and intensive insulin therapy for septic shock in adults: a randomised controlled trial. JAMA 2010; 303:341-348.

Arabi YM, Dabbagh OC, Tamim HM, et al: Intensive versus conventional insulin therapy: a randomised controlled trial in medical and surgical critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2008; 36:3190-3197.
 
Brunkhorst FM, Engel C, Bloos F, et al: Intensive insulin therapy and pentastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:125-139.

Brunner R, Kitzberger R, Miehsler W, et al: Accuracy and reliability of a subcutaneous continuous glucose-monitoring system in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2011; Kam 7 [Epub ahead of print]

Clarke WL, Cox D, Gonder-Frederick LA, et al: Evaluating clinical accuracy of systems for selfmonitoring of blood glucose. Diabetes Care 1987; 10:622-628.

Corstjens AM, Ligtenberg JJ, van dH, I, et al: Accuracy and feasibility of point-of-care and continuous blood glucose analysis in critically ill ICU patients. Crit Care 2006; 10:R135.

De La Rosa GDC, Donado JH, Restrepo AH, et al: Strict glycaemic control in patients hospitalised in a mixed medical and surgical intensive care unit: a randomised clinical trial. Crit Care 2008; 12:R120.
 
Dungan KM, Braithwaite SS, Preiser JC: Stress hyperglycaemia. Lancet 2009; 373:1798-1807.

Duning T, van dH, I, Dickmann A, et al: Hypoglycaemia aggravates critical illnessinduced neurocognitive dysfunction. Diabetes Care 2010; 33:639-644.

Egi M, Bellomo R, Stachowski E, et al: Variability of blood glucose concentration and short-term mortality in critically ill patients. Anesthesiology 2006; 105:244-252.

Egi M, Bellomo R, Stachowski E, et al: Hypoglycaemia and outcome in critically ill patients. Mayo Clin Proc 2010; 85:217-224
Eslami S, de Keizer NF, de Jonge E, et al: A systematic review on quality indicators for tight glycaemic control in critically ill patients: need for an unambiguous indicator reference subset. Crit Care 2008; 12:R139.

Fahy BG, Coursin DB: An analysis: hyperglycaemic intensive care patients need continuous glucose monitoring-easier said than done. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2008; 2:201-204.

Falciglia M, Freyberg RW, Almenoff PL, et al: Hyperglycaemia-related mortality in critically ill patients varies with admission diagnosis. Crit Care Med 2009; 37:3001-3009.

Finfer S, Chittock DR, Su SY, et al: Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:1283-1297.

Friedrich JO, Chant C, Adhikari NK: Does intensive insulin therapy really reduce mortality in critically ill surgical patients? A reanalysis of meta-analytic data. Crit Care 2010; 14:324.

Furnary AP, Gao G, Grunkemeier GL, et al: Continuous insulin infusion reduces mortality in patients with diabetes undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003; 125:1007-1021.

Garrouste-Orgeas M, Timsit JF, Vesin A, et al: Selected medical errors in the intensive care unit: results of the IATROREF study: parts I and II. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 181:134-142.

Ichai C, Preiser JC: International recommendations for glucose control in adult non diabetic critically ill patients. Crit Care 2010; 14:R166.

Joseph JI, Hipszer B, Mraovic B, et al: Clinical need for continuous glucose monitoring in the hospital. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2009; 3:1309-1318.

Juneja R, Roudebush CP, Nasraway SA, et al: Computerised intensive insulin dosing can mitigate hypoglycaemia and achieve tight glycaemic control when glucose measurement is performed frequently and on time. Crit Care 2009; 13:R163.

Kanji S, Buffie J, Hutton B, et al: Reliability of point-of-care testing for glucose measurement in critically ill adults. Crit Care Med 2005; 33:2778-2785.

Krinsley JS, Preiser JC: Moving beyond tight glucose control to safe effective glucose control. Crit Care 2008; 12:149.

Lacherade JC, Jacqueminet S, Preiser JC: An overview of hypoglycaemia in the critically ill. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2009; 3:1242-1249
Lonergan T, Le Compte A, Willacy M, et al: A simple insulin-nutrition protocol for tight glycaemic control in critical illness: development and protocol comparison. Diabetes Technol Ther 2006; 8:191-206.

Moghissi ES, Korytkowski MT, DiNardo M, et al: American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American Diabetes Association consensus statement on inpatient glycaemic control. Diabetes Care 2009; 32:1119-1131.

Mraovic B: Analysis: Continuous glucose monitoring during intensive insulin therapy. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2009; 3:960-963
Oddo M, Schmidt JM, Carrera E, et al: Impact of tight glycaemic control on cerebral glucose metabolism after severe brain injury: a microdialysis study. Crit Care Med 2008; 36:3233-3238.

Preiser JC: Restoring normoglycaemia: not so harmless. Crit Care 2008; 12:116.

Preiser JC: NICE-SUGAR: the end of a sweet dream? Crit Care 2009; 13:143.

Preiser JC, Devos P, Chiolero R: Which factors influence glycaemic control in the intensive care unit? Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2010; 13:205-210.

Preiser JC, Devos P, Ruiz-Santana S, et al: A prospective randomised multi-centre controlled trial on tight glucose control by intensive insulin therapy in adult intensive care units: the Glucontrol study. Intensive Care Med 2009; 35:1738-1748.

Risso A, Mercuri F, Quagliaro L, et al: Intermittent high glucose enhances apoptosis in human umbilical vein endothelial cells in culture. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2001; 281:E924-E930.

Rooyackers O, Blixt C, Mattsson P, et al: Continuous glucose monitoring by intravenous microdialysis. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2010; 54:841-847.
 
Schultz MJ, Harmsen RE, Spronk PE: Clinical review: Strict or loose glycaemic control in critically ill patients--implementing best available evidence from randomised controlled trials. Crit Care 2010; 14:223.

Smith FG, Sheehy AM, Vincent JL, et al: Critical illness- induced dysglycaemia: diabetes and beyond. Crit Care 2010; 14:327.
 
Suhaimi F, Le Compte A, Preiser JC, et al: What makes tight glycaemic control tight? The impact of variability and nutrition in two clinical studies. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2010; 4:284-298.

van den Berghe G, Wilmer A, Hermans G, et al: Intensive insulin therapy in the medical ICU. N Engl J Med 2006a; 354:449-461.

van den Berghe G, Wilmer A, Milants I, et al: Intensive insulin therapy in mixed medical/surgical intensive care units: benefit versus harm. Diabetes 2006b; 55:3151-3159.

van den Berghe G, Wouters P, Weekers F, et al: Intensive insulin therapy in the critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:1359-1367.

Vespa PM: Intensive glycaemic control in traumatic brain injury: what is the ideal glucose range? Crit Care 2008; 12:175.

Vincent JL: Blood glucose control in 2010: 110 to 150 mg/dL and minimal variability. Crit Care Med 2010; 38:993-995.

Vlasselaers D, Herpe TV, Milants I, et al: Blood glucose measurements in arterial blood of intensive care unit patients submitted to tight glycaemic control: agreement between bedside tests. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2008; 2:932-938.

Wilson M, Weinreb J, Hoo GW: Intensive insulin therapy in critical care: a review of 12 protocols. Diabetes Care 2007; 30:1005-1011.

Yatabe T, Yamazaki R, Kitagawa H, et al: The evaluation of the ability of closed-loop glycaemic control device to maintain the blood glucose concentration in intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med 2011; 39:575-578.



Print as PDF
Many studies, some already published a long time ago, have reported that hyperglycaemia (Dungan et al. 2009), or “dysglycaemia” (Smith et al. 2010) as some

No comment


Please login to leave a comment...

Highlighted Products