Intensive perioperative glucose control does not improve outcomes of patients submitted to open-heart surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Nurse case management to improve glycemic control in diabetic patients in a health maintenance organization. A randomized, controlled trial. Glycaemic impact of patient-led use of sensor-guided pump therapy in type 1 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial. A prospective randomised multi-centre controlled trial on tight glucose control by intensive insulin therapy in adult intensive care units: the Glucontrol study. Intensive intraoperative insulin therapy versus conventional glucose management during cardiac surgery: a randomized trial. The effect of intensive insulin therapy on infection rate, vasospasm, neurologic outcome, and mortality in neurointensive care unit after intracranial aneurysm clipping in patients with acute subarachnoid hemorrhage: a randomized prospective pilot trial. Intensive therapy in adult insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus is associated with improved insulin sensitivity and reserve: a randomized, controlled, prospective study over 5 years in newly diagnosed patients. Management of patients with type 2 diabetes by pharmacists in primary care clinics. A randomized trial of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and intensive injection therapy in type 1 diabetes for patients with long-standing poor glycemic control.
The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between different target levels of glucose and the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.
                We designed a prospective study in a university hospital where 109 consecutive patients were enrolled during a six-month period. All patients were scheduled for open-heart surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups. One group consisted of 55 patients and had a target glucose level of 80-130 mg/dl, while the other contained 54 patients and had a target glucose level of 160-200 mg/dl. These parameters were controlled during surgery and for 36 hours after surgery in the intensive care unit. Primary outcomes were clinical outcomes, including time of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit, infection, hypoglycemia, renal or neurological dysfunction, blood transfusion and length of stay in the hospital. The secondary outcome was a combined end-point (mortality at 30 days, infection or length of stay in the intensive care unit of more than 3 days). A p-value of <0.05 was considered significant.
                The anthropometric and clinical characteristics of the patients from each group were similar, except for weight and body mass index. The mean glucose level during the protocol period was 126.69 mg/dl in the treated group and 168.21 mg/dl in the control group (p<0.0016). There were no differences between groups regarding clinical outcomes, including the duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit, blood transfusion, postoperative infection, hypoglycemic event, neurological dysfunction or 30-day mortality (p>0.05).
                In 109 patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass, both protocols of glycemic control in an intraoperative setting and in the intensive care unit were found to be safe, easily achieved and not to differentially affect clinical outcomes. Control of hyperglycemia delays or prevents complications of diabetes, but many persons with diabetes do not achieve optimal control.
                To compare diabetes control in patients receiving nurse case management and patients receiving usual care.
                Randomized, controlled trial.
                Primary care clinics in a group-model health maintenance organization (HMO).
                17 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and 121 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
                The nurse case manager followed written management algorithms under the direction of a family physician and an endocrinologist. Changes in therapy were communicated to primary care physicians. All patients received ongoing care through their primary care physicians.
                The primary outcome, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) value, was measured at baseline and at 12 months. Fasting blood glucose levels, medication type and dose, body weight, blood pressure, lipid levels, patient-perceived health status, episodes of severe hypoglycemia, and emergency department and hospital admissions were also assessed.
                72% of patients completed follow-up. Patients in the nurse case management group had mean decreases of 1.7 percentage points in HbA1c values and 43 mg/dL (2.38 mmol/L) in fasting glucose levels; patients in the usual care group had decreases of 0.6 percentage points in HbA1c values and 15 mg/dL (0.83 mmol/L) in fasting glucose levels (P < 0.01). Self-reported health status improved in the nurse case management group (P = 0.02). The nurse case management intervention was not associated with statistically significant changes in medication type or dose, body weight, blood pressure, or lipids or with adverse events.
                A nurse case manager with considerable management responsibility can, in association with primary care physicians and an endocrinologist, help improve glycemic control in diabetic patients in a group-model HMO. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of patient-led sensor-guided pump management on glycaemic control, and compare the effect with that of standard insulin pump therapy.
                An open multicentre parallel randomised controlled trial was conducted at five tertiary diabetes centres. Participants aged 13.0-40.0 years with well-controlled type 1 diabetes were randomised 1:1 to either study group for 3 months. Randomisation was carried out using a central computer-generated schedule. Participants in the intervention group used sensor-guided pump management; no instructive guidelines in interpreting real-time data were provided ('patient-led' use). Participants in the control group continued their original insulin pump regimen. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and HbA(1c) level were used to assess outcomes. The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of time in the target glycaemic range during the 3 month study period (derived from CGM, target range 4-10 mmol/l). Secondary outcomes were difference in HbA(1c), time in hypoglycaemic (< or =3.9 mmol/l) and hyperglycaemic (> or =10.1 mmol/l) ranges and glycaemic variability.
                Sixty-two participants were recruited and randomised; 5/31 and 2/31 withdrew from intervention and control groups, respectively, leaving 26/31 and 29/31 for the intention-to-treat analyses. When adjusted for baseline values, the mean end-of-study HbA(1c) was 0.43% lower in the intervention group compared with the control group (95% CI 0.19 to 0.75%; p = 0.009). No difference was observed in CGM-derived time in target (measured difference 1.72; 95% CI -5.37 to 8.81), hypoglycaemic (0.54; 95% CI -3.48 to 4.55) or hyperglycaemic (-2.18; 95% CI -10.0 to 5.69) range or in glycaemic variability (-0.29; 95% CI -0.34 to 0.28). Within the intervention group, HbA(1c) was 0.51% lower in participants with sensor use > or =70% compared with participants with sensor use <70% (95% CI -0.98 to -0.04, p = 0.04). Five episodes of device malfunction occurred.
                Individuals established on insulin pump therapy can employ sensor-guided pump management to improve glycaemic control. An apparent dose-dependent effect of sensor usage was noted; however, frequent use of this technology (> or =70%) was not universally acceptable.
                ACTRN12606000049572 An optimal target for glucose control in ICU patients remains unclear. This prospective randomized controlled trial compared the effects on ICU mortality of intensive insulin therapy (IIT) with an intermediate glucose control.
                Adult patients admitted to the 21 participating medico-surgical ICUs were randomized to group 1 (target BG 7.8-10.0 mmol/L) or to group 2 (target BG 4.4-6.1 mmol/L).
                While the required sample size was 1,750 per group, the trial was stopped early due to a high rate of unintended protocol violations. From 1,101 admissions, the outcomes of 542 patients assigned to group 1 and 536 of group 2 were analysed. The groups were well balanced. BG levels averaged in group 1 8.0 mmol/L (IQR 7.1-9.0) (median of all values) and 7.7 mmol/L (IQR 6.7-8.8) (median of morning BG) versus 6.5 mmol/L (IQR 6.0-7.2) and 6.1 mmol/L (IQR 5.5-6.8) for group 2 (p < 0.0001 for both comparisons). The percentage of patients treated with insulin averaged 66.2 and 96.3%, respectively. Proportion of time spent in target BG was similar, averaging 39.5% and 45.1% (median (IQR) 34.3 (18.5-50.0) and 39.3 (26.2-53.6)%) in the groups 1 and 2, respectively. The rate of hypoglycaemia was higher in the group 2 (8.7%) than in group 1 (2.7%, p < 0.0001). ICU mortality was similar in the two groups (15.3 vs. 17.2%).
                In this prematurely stopped and therefore underpowered study, there was a lack of clinical benefit of intensive insulin therapy (target 4.4-6.1 mmol/L), associated with an increased incidence of hypoglycaemia, as compared to a 7.8-10.0 mmol/L target. (ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT00107601, EUDRA-CT Number: 200400391440). It is not known whether rigorous intraoperative glycemic control reduces death and morbidity in cardiac surgery patients.
                To compare outcomes of intensive insulin therapy during cardiac surgery with those of conventional intraoperative glucose management.
                A randomized, open-label, controlled trial with blinded end point assessment.
                Tertiary care center.
                Adults with and without diabetes who were undergoing on-pump cardiac surgery.
                The primary outcome was a composite of death, sternal infections, prolonged ventilation, cardiac arrhythmias, stroke, and renal failure within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcome measures were length of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital.
                Patients were randomly assigned to receive continuous insulin infusion to maintain intraoperative glucose levels between 4.4 (80 mg/dL) and 5.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) (n = 199) or conventional treatment (n = 201). Patients in the conventional treatment group were not given insulin during surgery unless glucose levels were greater than 11.1 mmol/L (>200 mg/dL). Both groups were treated with insulin infusion to maintain normoglycemia after surgery.
                Mean glucose concentrations were statistically significantly lower in the intensive treatment group at the end of surgery (6.3 mmol/L [SD, 1.6] [114 mg/dL {SD, 29}] in the intensive treatment group vs. 8.7 mmol/L [SD, 2.3] [157 mg/dL {SD, 42}] in the conventional treatment group; difference, -2.4 mmol/L [95% CI, -2.8 to -1.9 mmol/L] [-43 mg/dL {CI, -50 to -35 mg/dL}]). Eighty two of 185 patients (44%) in the intensive treatment group and 86 of 186 patients (46%) in the conventional treatment group had an event (risk ratio, 1.0 [CI, 0.8 to 1.2]). More deaths (4 deaths vs. 0 deaths; P = 0.061) and strokes (8 strokes vs. 1 strokes; P = 0.020) occurred in the intensive treatment group. Length of stay in the intensive care unit (mean, 2 days [SD, 2] vs. 2 days [SD, 3]; difference, 0 days [CI, -1 to 1 days]) and in the hospital (mean, 8 days [SD, 4] vs. 8 days [SD, 5]; difference, 0 days [CI, -1 to 0 days]) was similar for both groups.
                This single-center study used a composite end point and could not examine whether outcomes differed by diabetes status.
                Intensive insulin therapy during cardiac surgery does not reduce perioperative death or morbidity. The increased incidence of death and stroke in the intensive treatment group raises concern about routine implementation of this intervention. It is unclear if avoiding hyperglycemia during intensive care after acute brain injury improves morbidity, mortality, and neurologic outcome. This prospective randomized trial tested whether intensive insulin therapy affected infection rates, vasospasm, mortality, or long-term neurologic outcome in subarachnoid hemorrhage patients during their intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Comparison was made against conventional insulin therapy using a randomized trial design. The primary outcome measure was infection rate until the fourteenth postoperative day in the ICU or until patient discharge. Secondary end points were the incidence of vasospasm until the fourteenth postoperative day in the ICU or until patient discharge, and neurologic outcome and mortality at 6 months follow-up. A total of 78 patients were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned either to conventional insulin therapy or to intensive insulin therapy (38 and 40 patients, respectively). The infection rate during the study was significantly higher in patients who received conventional insulin therapy than in patients who received intensive insulin therapy (42% vs. 27%; P<0.001). The incidence of vasospasm during the study was also similar in conventional and intensive therapy groups (31.5% vs. 27.6% in the conventional and intensive insulin therapy groups; P=0.9). Overall mortality rates at 6 months were similar in the 2 groups (18% vs.15%; P=0.9), as was the neurologic outcome at 6 months [modified Rankin score >3 in 22/38 patients (57.8%) in the conventional therapy group vs. 21/40 patients (52.5%) in the intensive insulin therapy group; P=0.7]. Intensive insulin therapy in patients with acute subarachnoid hemorrhage admitted to a postoperative neurosurgical ICU after surgical clipping of intracranial aneurysms decreases infection rates. The benefit of strict glycemic control on postoperative vasospasm, neurologic outcome, and mortality rates does not seem to be affected by intensive insulin therapy. Optimal blood glucose levels and normal insulin sensitivity are aims in the treatment of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). Insulin sensitivity and insulin reserve are closely interrelated. It is essential to know more about both of these parameters at clinical diagnosis, because their preservation may delay the occurrence of diabetes-related complications. B-cell function is likely to be retained for a longer period in patients with adult onset of the disease compared with children. In this study, intensive insulin treatment was initiated in newly diagnosed adult patients to determine if it preserved endogenous insulin secretion longer than conventional therapy. Forty-nine patients with newly diagnosed diabetes were carefully categorized as having IDDM according to clinical and serological criteria. They were randomized to an intensive (I group) or conventional (C group) insulin therapy and evaluated for 5 years. Every 6 months, a check-up included glucagon-stimulated C-peptide (GSCP), hyperglycemic glucose clamp with arginine bolus, euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp, and screening for microalbuminuria, retinopathy, and neuropathy. At the end of the study, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was 6.3% +/- 1.9% in the I patients and 8.1% +/- 2.1% in the C patients (P < .001). Blood glucose concentrations less than 3.5 mmol/L were more frequent in the I group than in the C group (P < .05). Insulin sensitivity (M/I) and GSCP were higher in intensively treated patients after 5 years (M/I, I group 40 +/- 10 nmol x kg(-1) x min(-1) x pmol/L1 v C group 21 +/- 11, P < .005; GSCP, I group 0.6 +/- 0.2 nmol/L v C group 0.19 +/- 0.11, P < .005). The prevalence of peripheral neuropathy was significantly lower in the I group at the end of the study. In conclusion, intensive therapy is more effective in the preservation of insulin action and reserve. In our patients, no case of severe hypoglycemia was observed, indicating that intensive therapy was safe in these patients. To determine the impact of clinical pharmacists involved in direct patient care on the glycemic control of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
                Eligible patients included those with type 2 diabetes who received insulin or were initiated on insulin therapy by the pharmacists and were willing to perform self-monitoring of blood glucose. The pharmacists provided diabetes education, medication counseling, monitoring, and insulin initiation and/or adjustments. All initial patient interactions with the pharmacists were face-to-face. Thereafter, patient-pharmacist interactions were either face-to-face or telephone contacts.
                Two primary care clinics in a university-affiliated Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
                Study subjects were patients with type 2 diabetes who were referred to the pharmacists by their primary care providers for better glycemic control.
                Primary outcome variables were changes from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin, fasting blood glucose, and random blood glucose measurements. Secondary outcomes were the number and severity of symptomatic episodes of hypoglycemia, and the number of emergency room visits or hospitalizations related to diabetes. Twenty-three veterans aged 65-9.4 years completed the study. Fifteen (65%) patients were initiated on insulin by the pharmacists; 8 (35%) were already using insulin. Patients were followed for a mean-SD of 27-10 weeks. Glycosylated hemoglobin, fasting blood glucose concentrations, and random blood glucose concentrations significantly decreased from baseline by 2.2% (p = 0.00004), 65 mg/dL (p < 0.01), and 82 mg/dL (p = 0.00001), respectively. Symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes occurred in 35% of patients. None of these episodes required physician intervention.
                This study demonstrates that pharmacists working as members of interdisciplinary primary care teams can positively impact glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin. To assess in a randomized crossover trial the efficacy of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in improving glycemic control and health-related quality of life in type 1 diabetic patients with long-standing poor glycemic control.
                A total of 79 patients in 11 Dutch centers were randomized to 16 weeks of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion followed by 16 weeks intensive injection therapy or the reverse order. Glycemic control was assessed by HbA(1c), self-reported hypoglycemic events, and blood glucose memory meter read outs. Changes in quality of life were assessed by self-report questionnaires administered at baseline and 16 weeks.
                As the drop-out rate after crossover was high (17 of 79 patients [22%]), we analyzed the trial as a parallel clinical trial, using data of the first half of the crossover phase only. At 16 weeks, mean HbA(1c) was 0.84% (95% CI -1.31 to -0.36) lower in the continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion group compared with the insulin injection group (P = 0.002). Stability of blood glucose self-measurement values, expressed as SD of the nine-point blood glucose profiles, improved in the insulin pump group by 29.3 +/- 41.1 vs. 8.2 +/- 36.5% in the injection group (P = 0.039). The number of mild hypoglycemic episodes per patient-week was 0.99 (95% CI 0.11-1.87) higher in the insulin pump group (P = 0.028). Weight gain was similar in both groups. Scores on the Short-Form 36-Item subscales 'general health' and 'mental health' improved in the continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion group, compared with stable values in the injection group (P = 0.048 and 0.050, respectively).
                Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion improves glycemic control and some aspects of health-related quality of life in patients with a history of long-term poor glycemic control.
The included trials did not demonstrate significant differences for most of the outcomes when targeting intensive perioperative glycaemic control compared with conventional glycaemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus. However, posthoc analysis indicated that intensive glycaemic control was associated with an increased number of patients experiencing hypoglycaemic episodes. Intensive glycaemic control protocols with near-normal blood glucose targets for patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing surgical procedures are currently not supported by an adequate scientific basis. We suggest that insulin treatment regimens, patient- and health-system relevant outcomes, and time points for outcome measures should be defined in a thorough and uniform way in future studies.