Accuracy and Feasibility of Real-time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Critically Ill Patients After Abdominal Surgery and Solid Organ Transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: Glycemia management in critical care is posing a challenge in frequent measuring and adequate insulin dose adjustment. In recent years, continuous glucose measurement has gained accuracy and reliability in outpatient and inpatient settings. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and accuracy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in ICU patients after major abdominal surgery. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We included patients undergoing pancreatic surgery and solid organ transplantation (liver, pancreas, islets of Langerhans, kidney) requiring an ICU stay after surgery. We used a Dexcom G6 sensor, placed in the infraclavicular region, for real-time CGM. Arterial blood glucose measured by the amperometric principle (ABL 800; Radiometer, Copenhagen, Denmark) served as a reference value and for calibration. Blood glucose was also routinely monitored by a StatStrip bedside glucose meter. Sensor accuracy was assessed by mean absolute relative difference (MARD), bias, modified Bland-Altman plot, and surveillance error grid for paired samples of glucose values from CGM and acid-base analyzer (ABL). RESULTS: We analyzed data from 61 patients and obtained 1,546 paired glucose values from CGM and ABL. Active sensor use was 95.1%. MARD was 9.4%, relative bias was 1.4%, and 92.8% of values fell in zone A, 6.1% fell in zone B, and 1.2% fell in zone C of the surveillance error grid. Median time in range was 78%, with minimum (<1%) time spent in hypoglycemia. StatStrip glucose meter MARD compared with ABL was 5.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows clinically applicable accuracy and reliability of Dexcom G6 CGM in postoperative ICU patients and a feasible alternative sensor placement site.

Sepsis affects kidney graft function and one-year mortality of the recipients in contrast with systemic inflammatory response.

Background: Infections remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality after kidney transplantation. The aim of our study was to determine the effect of sepsis on kidney graft function and recipient mortality. Methods: A prospective, observational, single-center study was performed. Selected clinical and biochemical parameters were recorded and compared between an experimental group (with sepsis, n = 34) and a control group (with systemic inflammatory response syndrome, n = 31) comprising kidney allograft recipients. Results: Sepsis worsened both patient (HR = 14.77, p = 0.007) and graft survival (HR = 15.07, p = 0.007). Overall one-year mortality was associated with age (HR = 1.08, p = 0.048), APACHE II score (HR = 1.13, p = 0.035), and combination immunosuppression therapy (HR = 0.1, p = 0.006), while graft survival was associated with APACHE II (HR = 1.25, p = 0.004) and immunosuppression. In sepsis patients, mortality correlated with the maximal dose of noradrenalin (HR = 100.96, p = 0.008), fungal infection (HR = 5.64, p = 0.024), SAPS II score (HR = 1.06, p = 0.033), and mechanical ventilation (HR = 5.97, p = 0.033), while graft survival was influenced by renal replacement therapy (HR = 21.16, p = 0.005), APACHE II (HR = 1.19, p = 0.035), and duration of mechanical ventilation (HR = 1.01, p = 0.015). Conclusion: In contrast with systemic inflammatory response syndrome, septic kidney allograft injury is associated with early graft loss and may represent a significant risk of mortality.