4.6 Article

Dyslipidemia: a prospective controlled randomized trial of intensive glycemic control in sepsis

Journal

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages 634-641

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-011-2458-z

Keywords

Blood glucose; Sepsis; Fatty acids; Nonesterified; Lipids

Funding

  1. The Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [04/02161-2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Metabolic disturbances are quite common in critically ill patients. Glycemic control appears to be an important adjuvant therapy in such patients. In addition, disorders of lipid metabolism are associated with worse prognoses. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects that two different glycemic control protocols have on lipid profile and metabolism. We evaluated 63 patients hospitalized for severe sepsis or septic shock, over the first 72 h of intensive care. Patients were randomly allocated to receive conservative glycemic control (target range 140-180 mg/dl) or intensive glycemic control (target range 80-110 mg/dl). Serum levels of low-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein, triglycerides, total cholesterol, free fatty acids, and oxidized low-density lipoprotein were determined. In both groups, serum levels of low-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein, and total cholesterol were below normal, whereas those of free fatty acids, triglycerides, and oxidized low-density lipoprotein were above normal. At 4 h after admission, free fatty acid levels were higher in the conservative group than in the intensive group, progressively decreasing in both groups until hour 48 and continuing to decrease until hour 72 only in the intensive group. Oxidized low-density lipoprotein levels were elevated in both groups throughout the study period. Free fatty acids respond to intensive glycemic control and, because of their high toxicity, can be a therapeutic target in patients with sepsis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available