Perioperative Tight Glucose Control Reduces Postoperative Adverse Events in Nondiabetic Cardiac Surgery Patients.

CONTEXT: Tight glucose control (TGC) reduces morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery, but only limited data about its optimal timing are available to date. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article was to compare the effects of perioperative vs postoperative initiation of TGC on postoperative adverse events in cardiac surgery patients. DESIGN: This was a single center, single-blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial. SETTINGS: The setting was an academic tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 2383 hemodynamically stable patients undergoing major cardiac surgery with expected postoperative intensive care unit treatment for at least 2 consecutive days. INTERVENTION: Intensive insulin therapy was initiated perioperatively or postoperatively with a target glucose range of 4.4 to 6.1 mmol/L. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adverse events from any cause during postoperative hospital stay were compared. RESULTS: In the whole cohort, perioperatively initiated TGC markedly reduced the number of postoperative complications (23.2% vs 34.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.78) despite only minimal improvement in glucose control (blood glucose, 6.6 ± 0.7 vs 6.7 ± 0.8 mmol/L, P < .001; time in target range, 39.3% ± 13.7% vs 37.3% ± 13.8%, P < .001). The positive effects of TGC on postoperative complications were driven by nondiabetic subjects (21.3% vs 33.7%, 95% CI, 0.54-0.74; blood glucose 6.5 ± 0.6 vs 6.6 ± 0.8 mmol/L, not significant; time in target range, 40.8% ± 13.6% vs 39.7% ± 13.8%, not significant), whereas no significant effect was seen in diabetic patients (29.4% vs 35.1%, 95% CI, 0.66-1.06) despite significantly better glucose control in the perioperative group (blood glucose, 6.9 ± 1.0 vs 7.1 ± 0.8 mmol/L, P < .001; time in target range, 34.3% ± 12.7% vs 30.8% ± 11.5%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative initiation of intensive insulin therapy during cardiac surgery reduces postoperative morbidity in nondiabetic patients while having a minimal effect in diabetic subjects.

Comparison of three protocols for tight glycemic control in cardiac surgery patients.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a randomized trial to compare three insulin-titration protocols for tight glycemic control (TGC) in a surgical intensive care unit: an absolute glucose (Matias) protocol, a relative glucose change (Bath) protocol, and an enhanced model predictive control (eMPC) algorithm. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 120 consecutive patients after cardiac surgery were randomly assigned to the three protocols with a target glycemia range from 4.4 to 6.1 mmol/l. Intravenous insulin was administered continuously or in combination with insulin boluses (Matias protocol). Blood glucose was measured in 1- to 4-h intervals as requested by the protocols. RESULTS: The eMPC algorithm gave the best performance as assessed by time to target (8.8 +/- 2.2 vs. 10.9 +/- 1.0 vs. 12.3 +/- 1.9 h; eMPC vs. Matias vs. Bath, respectively; P < 0.05), average blood glucose after reaching the target (5.2 +/- 0.1 vs. 6.2 +/- 0.1 vs. 5.8 +/- 0.1 mmol/l; P < 0.01), time in target (62.8 +/- 4.4 vs. 48.4 +/- 3.28 vs. 55.5 +/- 3.2%; P < 0.05), time in hyperglycemia >8.3 mmol/l (1.3 +/- 1.2 vs. 12.8 +/- 2.2 vs. 6.5 +/- 2.0%; P < 0.05), and sampling interval (2.3 +/- 0.1 vs. 2.1 +/- 0.1 vs. 1.8 +/- 0.1 h; P < 0.05). However, time in hypoglycemia risk range (2.9-4.3 mmol/l) in the eMPC group was the longest (22.2 +/- 1.9 vs. 10.9 +/- 1.5 vs. 13.1 +/- 1.6; P < 0.05). No severe hypoglycemic episode (<2.3 mmol/l) occurred in the eMPC group compared with one in the Matias group and two in the Bath group. CONCLUSIONS: The eMPC algorithm provided the best TGC without increasing the risk of severe hypoglycemia while requiring the fewest glucose measurements. Overall, all protocols were safe and effective in the maintenance of TGC in cardiac surgery patients.

Blood glucose control by a model predictive control algorithm with variable sampling rate versus a routine glucose management protocol in cardiac surgery patients: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Elevated blood glucose levels occur frequently in the critically ill. Tight glucose control by intensive insulin treatment markedly improves clinical outcome. OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: This is a randomized controlled trial comparing blood glucose control by a laptop-based model predictive control algorithm with a variable sampling rate [enhanced model predictive control (eMPC); version 1.04.03] against a routine glucose management protocol (RMP) during the peri- and postoperative periods. SETTING: The study was performed at the Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 60 elective cardiac surgery patients were included in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Elective cardiac surgery and treatment with continuous insulin infusion (eMPC) or continuous insulin infusion combined with iv insulin boluses (RMP) to maintain euglycemia (target range 4.4-6.1 mmol/liter) were performed. There were 30 patients randomized for eMPC and 30 for RMP treatment. Blood glucose was measured in 1- to 4-h intervals as requested by each algorithm during surgery and postoperatively over 24 h. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean blood glucose, percentage of time in target range, and hypoglycemia events were used. RESULTS: Mean blood glucose was 6.2 +/- 1.1 mmol/liter in the eMPC vs. 7.2 +/- 1.1 mmol/liter in the RMP group (P < 0.05); percentage of time in the target range was 60.4 +/- 22.8% for the eMPC vs. 27.5 +/- 16.2% for the RMP group (P < 0.05). No severe hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 2.9 mmol/liter) occurred during the study. Mean insulin infusion rate was 4.7 +/- 3.3 IU/h in the eMPC vs. 2.6 +/- 1.7 IU/h in the RMP group (P < 0.05). Mean sampling interval was 1.5 +/- 0.3 h in the eMPC vs. 2.1 +/- 0.2 h in the RMP group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with RMP, the eMPC algorithm was more effective and comparably safe in maintaining euglycemia in cardiac surgery patients.