Ascorbate-dependent vasopressor synthesis: a rationale for vitamin C administration in severe sepsis and septic shock?

Severe systemic inflammatory response to infection results in severe sepsis and septic shock, which are the leading causes of death in critically ill patients. Septic shock is characterised by refractory hypotension and is typically managed by fluid resuscitation and administration of catecholamine vasopressors such as norepinephrine. Vasopressin can also be administered to raise mean arterial pressure or decrease the norepinephrine dose. Endogenous norepinephrine and vasopressin are synthesised by the copper-containing enzymes dopamine ß-hydroxylase and peptidylglycine α-amidating monooxygenase, respectively. Both of these enzymes require ascorbate as a cofactor for optimal activity. Patients with severe sepsis present with hypovitaminosis C, and pre-clinical and clinical studies have indicated that administration of high-dose ascorbate decreases the levels of pro-inflammatory biomarkers, attenuates organ dysfunction and improves haemodynamic parameters. It is conceivable that administration of ascorbate to septic patients with hypovitaminosis C could improve endogenous vasopressor synthesis and thus ameliorate the requirement for exogenously administered vasopressors. Ascorbate-dependent vasopressor synthesis represents a currently underexplored biochemical mechanism by which ascorbate could act as an adjuvant therapy for severe sepsis and septic shock.

What makes tight glycemic control tight? The impact of variability and nutrition in two clinical studies.

INTRODUCTION: Tight glycemic control (TGC) remains controversial while successful, consistent, and effective protocols remain elusive. This research analyzes data from two TGC trials for root causes of the differences achieved in control and thus potentially in glycemic and other outcomes. The goal is to uncover aspects of successful TGC and delineate the impact of differences in cohorts. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using records from a 211-patient subset of the GluControl trial taken in Liege, Belgium, and 393 patients from Specialized Relative Insulin Nutrition Titration (SPRINT) in New Zealand. Specialized Relative Insulin Nutrition Titration targeted 4.0-6.0 mmol/liter, similar to the GluControl A (N = 142) target of 4.4-6.1 mmol/liter. The GluControl B (N = 69) target was 7.8-10.0 mmol/liter. Cohorts were matched by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and percentage males (p > .35); however, the GluControl cohort was slightly older (p = .011). Overall cohort and per-patient comparisons (median, interquartile range) are shown for (a) glycemic levels achieved, (b) nutrition from carbohydrate (all sources), and (c) insulin dosing for this analysis. Intra- and interpatient variability were examined using clinically validated model-based insulin sensitivity metric and its hour-to-hour variation. RESULTS: Cohort blood glucose were as follows: SPRINT, 5.7 (5.0-6.6) mmol/liter; GluControl A, 6.3 (5.3-7.6) mmol/liter; and GluControl B, 8.2 (6.9-9.4) mmol/liter. Insulin dosing was 3.0 (1.0-3.0), 1.5 (0.5-3), and 0.7 (0.0-1.7) U/h, respectively. Nutrition from carbohydrate (all sources) was 435.5 (259.2-539.1), 311.0 (0.0-933.1), and 622.1 (103.7-1036.8) kcal/day, respectively. Median per-patient results for blood glucose were 5.8 (5.3-6.4), 6.4 (5.9-6.9), and 8.3 (7.6-8.8) mmol/liter. Insulin doses were 3.0 (2.0-3.0), 1.5 (0.8-2.0), and 0.5 (0.0-1.0) U/h. Carbohydrate administration was 383.6 (207.4-497.7), 103.7 (0.0-829.4), and 207.4 (0.0-725.8) kcal/day. Overall, SPRINT gave approximately 2x more insulin with a 3-4x narrower, but generally non-zero, range of nutritional input to achieve equally TGC with less hypoglycemia. Specialized Relative Insulin Nutrition Titration had much less hypoglycemia (<2.2 mmol/liter), with 2% of patients, compared to GluControl A (7.7%) and GluControl B (2.9%), indicating much lower variability, with similar results for glucose levels <3.0 mmol/liter. Specialized Relative Insulin Nutrition Titration also had less hyperglycemia (>8.0 mmol/liter) than groups A and B. GluControl patients (A+B) had a approximately 2x wider range of insulin sensitivity than SPRINT. Hour-to-hour variation was similar. Hence GluControl had greater interpatient variability but similar intrapatient variability. CONCLUSION: Protocols that dose insulin blind to carbohydrate administration can suffer greater outcome glycemic variability, even if average cohort glycemic targets are met. While the cohorts varied significantly in model-assessed insulin resistance, their variability was similar. Such significant intra- and interpatient variability is a further significant cause and marker of glycemic variability in TGC. The results strongly recommended that TGC protocols be explicitly designed to account for significant intra- and interpatient variability in insulin resistance, as well as specifying or having knowledge of carbohydrate administration to minimize variability in glycemic outcomes across diverse cohorts and/or centers.

Model-based insulin and nutrition administration for tight glycaemic control in critical care.

OBJECTIVE: Present a new model-based tight glycaemic control approach using variable insulin and nutrition administration. BACKGROUND: Hyperglycaemia is prevalent in critical care. Current published protocols use insulin alone to reduce blood glucose levels, require significant added clinical effort, and provide highly variable results. None directly address both the practical clinical difficulties and significant patient variation seen in general critical care, while also providing tight control. METHODS: The approach presented manages both nutritional inputs and exogenous insulin infusions using tables simplified from a model-based, computerised protocol. Unique delivery aspects include bolus insulin delivery for safety and variable enteral nutrition rates. Unique development aspects include the use of simulated virtual patient trials created from retrospective data. The model, protocol development, and first 50 clinical case results are presented. RESULTS: High qualitative correlation to within +/-10% between simulated virtual trials and published clinical results validates the overall approach. Pilot tests covering 7358 patient hours produced an average glucose of 5.9 +/- 1.1 mmol/L. Time in the 4-6.1 mmol/L band was 59%, with 84% in 4.0-7.0 mmol/L, and 92% in 4.0-7.75 mmol/L. The average feed rate was 63% of patient specific goal feed and the average insulin dose was 2.6U/hour. There was one hypoglycaemic measurement of 2.1 mmol/L. No departures from protocol or clinical interventions were required at any time. SUMMARY: Modulating both low dose insulin boluses and nutrition input rates challenges the current practice of using only insulin in larger doses to reduce hyperglycaemic levels. Clinical results show very tight control in safe glycaemic bands. The approach could be readily adopted in any typical ICU.