Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury: long-term follow-up of a subgroup of patients from the NICE-SUGAR study
- 2.2k Downloads
To compare the effect of intensive versus conventional blood glucose control in patients with traumatic brain injury.
In a large international randomized trial patients were randomly assigned to a target blood glucose (BG) range of either 4.5–6.0 mmol/L (intensive control) or <10 mmol/L (conventional control). Patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) were identified at randomization and data were collected to examine the extended Glasgow outcome score (includes mortality) at 24 months.
Of the 6104 randomized patients, 391 satisfied diagnostic criteria for TBI; 203 (51.9 %) were assigned to intensive and 188 (48.1 %) to conventional control; the primary outcome was available for 166 (81.8 %) and 149 (79.3 %) patients, respectively. The two groups had
similar baseline characteristics. At 2 years 98 (58.7 %) patients in the intensive group and 79 (53.0 %) in the conventional group had a favorable neurological outcome (odds ratio [OR] 1.26, 95 % CI 0.81–1.97; P = 0.3); 35 patients (20.9 %) in the intensive group and 34 (22.8 %) in the conventional group had died (OR 0.90, 95 % CI 0.53–1.53; P = 0.7); moderate hypoglycemia (BG 2.3–3.9 mmol/L; 41–70 mg/dL) occurred in 160/202 (79.2 %) and 17/188 (9.0 %), respectively (OR 38.3, 95 % CI 21.0–70.1; P < 0.0001); severe hypoglycemia (BG ≤ 2.2 mmol/L; ≤40 mg/dL) in 10 (4.9 %) and 0 (0.0 %), respectively (OR 20.5 95 % CI 1.2–351.6, P = 0.003).
Although patients with traumatic brain injury randomly assigned to intensive compared to conventional glucose control experienced moderate and severe hypoglycemia more frequently, we found no significant difference in clinically important outcomes.
KeywordsBrain injury Blood glucose Hypoglycemia Treatment outcome Randomized trial
Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; Health Research Council of New Zealand; Canadian Institutes for Health Research; Victorian Neurotrauma Initiative.
Conflicts of interest
None of the members of the writing committee have conflicts of interest in respect of this manuscript.
- 3.Preiser JC, Devos P, Ruiz-Santana S, Melot C, Annane D, Groeneveld J, Iapichino G, Leverve X, Nitenberg G, Singer P, Wernerman J, Joannidis M, Stecher A, Chiolero R (2009) A prospective randomized multi-centre controlled trial on tight glucose control by intensive insulin therapy in adult intensive care units: the Glu control study. Intensive Care Med 35:1738–1748PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Kalfon P, Giraudeau B, Ichai C, Guerrini A, Brechot N, Cinotti R, Dequin PF, Riu-Poulenc B, Montravers P, Annane D, Dupont H, Sorine M, Riou B, CGAO-REA Study Group (2014) Tight computerized versus conventional glucose control in the ICU: a randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med 40:171–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Arabi YM, Dabbagh OC, Tamim HM, Al-Shimemeri AA, Memish ZA, Haddad SH, Syed SJ, Giridhar HR, Rishu AH, Al-Daker MO, Kahoul SH, Britts RJ, Sakkijha MH (2008) Intensive versus conventional insulin therapy: a randomized controlled trial in medical and surgical critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 36:3190–3197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.De La Rosa GDC, Donado JH, Restrepo AH, Quintero AM, Gonzalez LG, Saldarriaga NE, Bedoya M, Toro JM, Velasquez JB, Valencia JC, Arango CM, Aleman PH, Vasquez EM, Chavarriaga JC, Yepes A, Pulido W, Cadavid CA (2008) Strict glycaemic control in patients hospitalised in a mixed medical and surgical intensive care unit: a randomised clinical trial. Crit Care 12:R120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.American Diabetes Association (2012) Standards of medical care in diabetes-2012. Diabetes Care 35(Suppl 1):S11–S63Google Scholar
- 20.Qaseem A, Humphrey LL, Chou R, Snow V, Shekelle P, Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians (2011) Use of intensive insulin therapy for the management of glycemic control in hospitalized patients: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 154:260–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Meierhans R, Bechir M, Ludwig S, Sommerfeld J, Brandi G, Haberthur C, Stocker R, Stover JF (2010) Brain metabolism is significantly impaired at blood glucose below 6 mM and brain glucose below 1 mM in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Crit Care 14:R13PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Vespa P, Boonyaputthikul R, McArthur DL, Miller C, Etchepare M, Bergsneider M, Glenn T, Martin N, Hovda D (2006) Intensive insulin therapy reduces microdialysis glucose values without altering glucose utilization or improving the lactate/pyruvate ratio after traumatic brain injury. Crit Care Med 34:850–856PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Vespa PM, McArthur D, O’Phelan K, Glenn T, Etchepare M, Kelly D, Bergsneider M, Martin NA, Hovda DA (2003) Persistently low extracellular glucose correlates with poor outcome 6 months after human traumatic brain injury despite a lack of increased lactate: a microdialysis study. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 23:865–877PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Vincent JL, de Mendonca A, Cantraine F, Moreno R, Takala J, Suter PM, Sprung CL, Colardyn F, Blecher S (1998) Use of the SOFA score to assess the incidence of organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care units: results of a multicenter, prospective study. Working group on “sepsis-related problems” of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Crit Care Med 26:1793–1800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Cinotti R, Ichai C, Orban JC, Kalfon P, Feuillet F, Roquilly A, Riou B, Blanloeil Y, Asehnoune K, Rozec B (2014) Effects of tight computerized glucose control on neurological outcome in severely brain injured patients: a multicenter sub-group analysis of the randomized-controlled open-label CGAO-REA study. Crit Care 18:498PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar