PURLs

Glucose control: How low should you go with the critically ill?

Author and Disclosure Information

 

References

WHAT’S NEW: Now we know: Don’t go too low

This study, in contrast to a number of smaller studies of lower quality, demonstrates a higher all-cause mortality rate at 90 days for critically ill patients receiving intensive glucose therapy. It is now clear that, among critically ill hospitalized patients, aiming for intensive glucose control (81-108 mg/dL) is associated with an increased rate of severe hypoglycemic events and all-cause mortality at 90 days. The previously used goal of conventional therapy (≤180 mg/dL) is safer.

CAVEATS: Study population may not reflect primary care

There are 2 caveats to this study. The first is that because of the nature of the research, it was impossible to maintain blinding of the clinical staff to patient assignments. The second important caveat pertains to the severity of illness among participants in this multicenter study: Most of these patients were in ICUs at tertiary care medical centers and had an expected ICU length of stay of 3 or more days. Although many family physicians manage patients in ICUs, the patients randomized in this study may represent a sicker than average patient population for some hospitals.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: Some may doubt validity of this outcome

Less aggressive glycemic control for critically ill patients should be easier to achieve, not more difficult. However, a change in glucose targets may require new admission order sets and, notably, reeducation of physicians and nurses who have been convinced by earlier studies that more intensive glucose control is superior.

Acknowledgments

The PURLs Surveillance System is supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

PURLs methodology

This study was selected and evaluated using FPIN’s Priority Updates from the Research Literature (PURL) Surveillance System methodology. The criteria and findings leading to the selection of this study as a PURL can be accessed at www.jfponline.com/purls.

Pages

Copyright © 2009 The Family Physicians Inquiries Network.
All rights reserved.

Online-Only Materials

AttachmentSize
PDF icon JFP05808424_methodology131.85 KB

Recommended Reading

A disfigured foot with ulcer
MDedge Family Medicine
Does case management improve diabetes outcomes?
MDedge Family Medicine
Glucose self-monitoring: Think twice for type 2 patients
MDedge Family Medicine
Achieve better glucose control for your hospitalized patients
MDedge Family Medicine
Birth control change proves fatal...“Bronchitis” turns out to be lung cancer...more...
MDedge Family Medicine
Glucose self-monitoring: Necessary—or not?
MDedge Family Medicine
Diabetes: Rethinking risk and the Dx that fits
MDedge Family Medicine
How to reach LDL targets quickly in patients with diabetes or metabolic syndrome
MDedge Family Medicine
Type 2 diabetes: Which interventions best reduce absolute risks of adverse events?
MDedge Family Medicine
Initiating antidepressant therapy? Try these 2 drugs first
MDedge Family Medicine