Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

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

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references138

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients.

          The optimal target range for blood glucose in critically ill patients remains unclear. Within 24 hours after admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), adults who were expected to require treatment in the ICU on 3 or more consecutive days were randomly assigned to undergo either intensive glucose control, with a target blood glucose range of 81 to 108 mg per deciliter (4.5 to 6.0 mmol per liter), or conventional glucose control, with a target of 180 mg or less per deciliter (10.0 mmol or less per liter). We defined the primary end point as death from any cause within 90 days after randomization. Of the 6104 patients who underwent randomization, 3054 were assigned to undergo intensive control and 3050 to undergo conventional control; data with regard to the primary outcome at day 90 were available for 3010 and 3012 patients, respectively. The two groups had similar characteristics at baseline. A total of 829 patients (27.5%) in the intensive-control group and 751 (24.9%) in the conventional-control group died (odds ratio for intensive control, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.28; P=0.02). The treatment effect did not differ significantly between operative (surgical) patients and nonoperative (medical) patients (odds ratio for death in the intensive-control group, 1.31 and 1.07, respectively; P=0.10). Severe hypoglycemia (blood glucose level, < or = 40 mg per deciliter [2.2 mmol per liter]) was reported in 206 of 3016 patients (6.8%) in the intensive-control group and 15 of 3014 (0.5%) in the conventional-control group (P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the two treatment groups in the median number of days in the ICU (P=0.84) or hospital (P=0.86) or the median number of days of mechanical ventilation (P=0.56) or renal-replacement therapy (P=0.39). In this large, international, randomized trial, we found that intensive glucose control increased mortality among adults in the ICU: a blood glucose target of 180 mg or less per deciliter resulted in lower mortality than did a target of 81 to 108 mg per deciliter. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00220987.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients.

            Hyperglycemia and insulin resistance are common in critically ill patients, even if they have not previously had diabetes. Whether the normalization of blood glucose levels with insulin therapy improves the prognosis for such patients is not known. We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled study involving adults admitted to our surgical intensive care unit who were receiving mechanical ventilation. On admission, patients were randomly assigned to receive intensive insulin therapy (maintenance of blood glucose at a level between 80 and 110 mg per deciliter [4.4 and 6.1 mmol per liter]) or conventional treatment (infusion of insulin only if the blood glucose level exceeded 215 mg per deciliter [11.9 mmol per liter] and maintenance of glucose at a level between 180 and 200 mg per deciliter [10.0 and 11.1 mmol per liter]). At 12 months, with a total of 1548 patients enrolled, intensive insulin therapy reduced mortality during intensive care from 8.0 percent with conventional treatment to 4.6 percent (P<0.04, with adjustment for sequential analyses). The benefit of intensive insulin therapy was attributable to its effect on mortality among patients who remained in the intensive care unit for more than five days (20.2 percent with conventional treatment, as compared with 10.6 percent with intensive insulin therapy, P=0.005). The greatest reduction in mortality involved deaths due to multiple-organ failure with a proven septic focus. Intensive insulin therapy also reduced overall in-hospital mortality by 34 percent, bloodstream infections by 46 percent, acute renal failure requiring dialysis or hemofiltration by 41 percent, the median number of red-cell transfusions by 50 percent, and critical-illness polyneuropathy by 44 percent, and patients receiving intensive therapy were less likely to require prolonged mechanical ventilation and intensive care. Intensive insulin therapy to maintain blood glucose at or below 110 mg per deciliter reduces morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients in the surgical intensive care unit.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Cardiac Surgery

              Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) evidence-based protocols for perioperative care can lead to improvements in clinical outcomes and cost savings. This article aims to present consensus recommendations for the optimal perioperative management of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. A review of meta-analyses, randomized clinical trials, large nonrandomized studies, and reviews was conducted for each protocol element. The quality of the evidence was graded and used to form consensus recommendations for each topic. Development of these recommendations was endorsed by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Critical Care Medicine
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                0090-3493
                January 19 2024
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Mackenzie Health, Vaughan, ON, Canada.
                [2 ]GUIDE Canada, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
                [3 ]System Critical Care Pharmacy Services Leader, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX.
                [4 ]Adult and Pediatric Critical Care Specialist, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT.
                [5 ]Department of Nurse Anesthesia, School of Nursing, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
                [6 ]Harvard Medical School and Division Chief, Medical Critical Care, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA.
                [7 ]Emory Critical Care Center, Atlanta, GA.
                [8 ]Salt Lake City, UT.
                [9 ]Pediatric Critical Care Pharmacist, New Hanover Regional Medical Center, Wilmington, NC.
                [10 ]Pulmonary Critical Care and Sleep Medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN.
                [11 ]Kaysville, UT.
                [12 ]Department of Nursing and Clinical Care Services—Critical Care, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
                [13 ]Director of Critical Care, Emeritus, Vagelos Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Stamford Hospital, Stamford, CT.
                [14 ]Division of Critical Care, Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT.
                [15 ]Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Critical Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, WI.
                [16 ]Division of Cardiac Surgery, Critical Care Western, London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada.
                [17 ]Medical Director for Research and Teaching, Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
                [18 ]Departments of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
                [19 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
                [20 ]School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
                [21 ]Lebanon, IN.
                Article
                10.1097/CCM.0000000000006174
                38240482
                2225e72d-cf08-4c56-8f31-ce34567aa860
                © 2024
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content94

                Cited by4

                Most referenced authors1,916