A comparison of two insulin infusion protocols in the medical intensive care unit by continuous glucose monitoring

Christophe E. M. De Block, Peter Rogiers, Philippe G. Jorens, Tom Schepens, Cosimo Scuffi, Luc F. Van Gaal

Achieving good glycemic control in intensive care units (ICU) requires a safe and efficient insulin infusion protocol (IIP). We aimed to compare the clinical performance of two IIPs (Leuven versus modified Yale protocol) in patients admitted to medical ICU, by using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). This is a pooled data analysis of two published prospective randomized controlled trials. CGM monitoring was performed in 57 MICU patients (age 64 ± 12 years, APACHE-II score 28 ± 7, non-diabetic/diabetic: 36/21). The main outcome measures were percentage of time in normoglycemia (80-110 mg/dl) and in hypoglycemia (<60 mg/dl), and glycemic variability (standard deviation, coefficient of variation, mean amplitude of glucose excursions, mean of daily differences). Twenty-two subjects were treated using the Leuven protocol and 35 by the Yale protocol; >63,000 CGM measurements were available. The percentage of time in normoglycemia (80-110 mg/dl) was higher (37 ± 15 vs. 26 ± 11%, p = 0.001) and percentage of time spent in hypoglycemia was lower (0[0-2] vs. 5[1-8]%, p = 0.001) in the Yale group. Median glycemia did not differ between groups (118[108-128] vs. 128[106-154] mg/dl). Glycemic variability was less pronounced in the Yale group (median SD 28[21-37] vs. 47[31-71] mg/dl, p = 0.001; CV 23[19-31] vs. 36[26-50]%, p = 0.001; MODD 35[26-41] vs. 60[33-94] mg/dl, p = 0.001). However, logistic regression could not identify type of IIP, diabetes status, age, BMI, or APACHE-II score as independent parameters for strict glucose control. The Yale protocol provided better average glycemia, more time spent in normoglycemia, less time in hypoglycemia, and less glycemic variability than the Leuven protocol, but was not independently associated with strict glycemic control.