4.7 Article

Percentage of Time in Range 70 to 139 mg/dL Is Associated With Reduced Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients Receiving IV Insulin Infusion

期刊

CHEST
卷 156, 期 5, 页码 878-886

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.05.016

关键词

diabetes; dysglycemia; glucose; glucose variation; intensive insulin therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: In addition to hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glycemic variability, reduced time in targeted blood glucose range (TIR) is associated with increased risk of death in critically ill patients. This relation between TIR and mortality may be confounded by diabetic status and antecedent glycemic control. METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed critically ill patients managed with the same IV insulin protocol at multiple centers. The percentage of TIR between 70 and 139 mg/dL was calculated. Patients with diabetic ketoacidosis, patients who had < 10 blood glucose readings, and patients with repeat admissions were excluded. The highest recorded glycosylated hemoglobin value in the preceding 3 months or up to 1 month following admission were used as a surrogate for the patient's preexisting glucose control. Stratified regression analyses were performed for 30-day mortality, with covariates of age, sex, TIR >= 80%, Acute Physiology Score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: A total of 9,028 patients, 53.2% of whom had diabetes, were studied. Median TIR was 84.1% for nondiabetic patients and 64.5% for patients with diabetes. Mortality was lower in those with TIR > 80% compared with those with TIR <= 80% (12.4% vs 19.2%; P < .001). TIR > 80% was independently associated with reduced mortality in nondiabetic patients (OR, 0.52; P < .001), patients with diabetes (OR, 0.69; P = .001), and patients with wellcontrolled disease (OR, 0.50; P < .001) but not in patients with poorly controlled disease (OR, 0.86; P = .40). CONCLUSIONS: TIR was independently associated with mortality in critically ill patients, particularly those with good antecedent glucose control.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据