Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Hyperglycemia in Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 9.5 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Chest Pub Date : 2025-02-15 DOI:10.1016/j.chest.2025.02.006
Andrew J Franck, Andrew L Hendrickson, Evan D Telford, BreAnna L Davids, Irina Murray Casanova, Abbie N Rosen, Susheela Hadigal, Robert C Ross
{"title":"Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Hyperglycemia in Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Andrew J Franck, Andrew L Hendrickson, Evan D Telford, BreAnna L Davids, Irina Murray Casanova, Abbie N Rosen, Susheela Hadigal, Robert C Ross","doi":"10.1016/j.chest.2025.02.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) could potentially improve management of hyperglycemia compared with standard point-of-care glucose monitoring for critically ill patients. However, there is limited evidence to support routine use of CGMs in the ICU.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>In critically ill patients with hyperglycemia, do CGMs improve time within target glucose range compared with standard of care?</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>This was an investigator-initiated, single-center, parallel-group, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Adult patients admitted to a medical or surgical ICU, who had diabetes mellitus or hyperglycemia, and were treated with insulin were eligible for enrollment. Participants were randomly assigned to have glucose monitoring performed with a CGM (intervention group) or standard of care (control group). Groups were compared for glycemic control and other relevant outcomes. The primary outcome for the study was percentage of time within the normoglycemic range, defined as 70 to 180 mg/dL (3.9-10 mmol/L).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-five participants were enrolled and randomized to study groups, with 43 participants in the intervention (CGM) group and 42 patients in the control (standard of care) group. For the primary outcome, there was no statistically significant difference between the intervention group (mean ± SD, 60.5% ± 30.5%) and the control group (mean ± SD, 61.4% ± 28.3%) in time within the goal glucose range (mean difference, -0.9%; 95% CI, -13.6 to 11.8; P = .9). Except for patient satisfaction, there were no statistically significant differences between groups for secondary and exploratory outcomes.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>The results of this study do not support CGMs as a superior method for routine glucose monitoring in the ICU compared with standard of care.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT05442853; URL: www.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials: </strong>gov.</p>","PeriodicalId":9782,"journal":{"name":"Chest","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chest","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2025.02.006","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) could potentially improve management of hyperglycemia compared with standard point-of-care glucose monitoring for critically ill patients. However, there is limited evidence to support routine use of CGMs in the ICU.

Research question: In critically ill patients with hyperglycemia, do CGMs improve time within target glucose range compared with standard of care?

Study design and methods: This was an investigator-initiated, single-center, parallel-group, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Adult patients admitted to a medical or surgical ICU, who had diabetes mellitus or hyperglycemia, and were treated with insulin were eligible for enrollment. Participants were randomly assigned to have glucose monitoring performed with a CGM (intervention group) or standard of care (control group). Groups were compared for glycemic control and other relevant outcomes. The primary outcome for the study was percentage of time within the normoglycemic range, defined as 70 to 180 mg/dL (3.9-10 mmol/L).

Results: Eighty-five participants were enrolled and randomized to study groups, with 43 participants in the intervention (CGM) group and 42 patients in the control (standard of care) group. For the primary outcome, there was no statistically significant difference between the intervention group (mean ± SD, 60.5% ± 30.5%) and the control group (mean ± SD, 61.4% ± 28.3%) in time within the goal glucose range (mean difference, -0.9%; 95% CI, -13.6 to 11.8; P = .9). Except for patient satisfaction, there were no statistically significant differences between groups for secondary and exploratory outcomes.

Interpretation: The results of this study do not support CGMs as a superior method for routine glucose monitoring in the ICU compared with standard of care.

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT05442853; URL: www.

Clinicaltrials: gov.

危重患者持续血糖监测治疗高血糖:一项随机对照试验
背景:与标准的监护点血糖监测相比,连续血糖监测仪(CGM)可能潜在地改善危重患者高血糖的管理。然而,支持在重症监护病房常规使用CGM的证据有限。研究问题:在患有高血糖的危重患者中,与标准治疗相比,CGM是否能改善血糖控制在目标范围内的时间?研究设计和方法:这是一项研究者发起的、单中心、平行组、开放标签、随机对照试验。患有糖尿病或高血糖并接受胰岛素治疗的内科或外科重症监护病房的成年患者符合入组条件。参与者被随机分配使用CGM(干预组)或标准护理(对照组)进行血糖监测。比较各组的血糖控制和其他相关结果。该研究的主要结局是在正常血糖范围内的时间百分比,定义为70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10 mmol/L)。结果:85名患者入组并随机分为实验组,干预组(CGM) 43例,对照组(标准护理)42例。在主要结局指标上,干预组(mean = 60.5%, SD = 30.5)与对照组(mean = 61.4%, SD = 28.3)在目标血糖范围内的时间差异无统计学意义(mean difference -0.9%, 95% CI -13.6 ~ 11.8, p = 0.9)。除患者满意度外,两组间的次要和探索性结果无统计学差异。解释:本研究的结果不支持CGM作为重症监护病房常规血糖监测的优越方法。试验注册:本研究已在ClinicalTrials.gov注册(NCT05442853)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Chest
Chest 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
3.10%
发文量
3369
审稿时长
15 days
期刊介绍: At CHEST, our mission is to revolutionize patient care through the collaboration of multidisciplinary clinicians in the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. We achieve this by publishing cutting-edge clinical research that addresses current challenges and brings forth future advancements. To enhance understanding in a rapidly evolving field, CHEST also features review articles, commentaries, and facilitates discussions on emerging controversies. We place great emphasis on scientific rigor, employing a rigorous peer review process, and ensuring all accepted content is published online within two weeks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信