These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Clinical Impact of Accurate Point-of-Care Glucose Monitoring for Tight Glycemic Control in Severely Burned Children.
    Author: Tran NK, Godwin ZR, Steele AN, Wolf SE, Palmieri TL.
    Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med; 2016 Sep; 17(9):e406-12. PubMed ID: 27472251.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the clinical impact of an accurate autocorrecting blood glucose monitoring system in children with severe burns. Blood glucose monitoring system accuracy is essential for providing appropriate intensive insulin therapy and achieving tight glycemic control in critically ill patients. Unfortunately, few comparison studies have been performed to evaluate the clinical impact of accurate blood glucose monitoring system monitoring in the high-risk pediatric burn population. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of an electronic health record system. SETTING: Pediatric burn ICU at an academic medical center. PATIENTS: Children (aged < 18 yr) with severe burns (≥ 20% total body surface area) receiving intensive insulin therapy guided by either a noncorrecting (blood glucose monitoring system-1) or an autocorrecting blood glucose monitoring system (blood glucose monitoring system-2). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patient demographics, insulin rates, and blood glucose monitoring system measurements were collected. The frequency of hypoglycemia and glycemic variability was compared between the two blood glucose monitoring system groups. A total of 122 patient charts from 2001 to 2014 were reviewed. Sixty-three patients received intensive insulin therapy using blood glucose monitoring system-1 and 59 via blood glucose monitoring system-2. Patient demographics were similar between the two groups. Mean insulin infusion rates (5.1 ± 3.8 U/hr; n = 535 paired measurements vs 2.4 ± 1.3 U/hr; n = 511 paired measurements; p < 0.001), glycemic variability, and frequency of hypoglycemic events (90 vs 12; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in blood glucose monitoring system-1-treated patients. Compared with laboratory measurements, blood glucose monitoring system-2 yielded the most accurate results (mean ± SD bias: -1.7 ± 6.9 mg/dL [-0.09 ± 0.4 mmol/L] vs 7.4 ± 13.5 mg/dL [0.4 ± 0.7 mmol/L]). Blood glucose monitoring system-2 patients achieve glycemic control more quickly (5.7 ± 4.3 vs 13.1 ± 6.9 hr; p< 0.001) and stayed within the target glycemic control range longer compared with blood glucose monitoring system-1 patients (85.2% ± 13.9% vs 57.9% ± 29.1%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Accurate autocorrecting blood glucose monitoring system optimizes intensive insulin therapy, improves tight glycemic control, and reduces the risk of hypoglycemia and glycemic variability. The use of an autocorrecting blood glucose monitoring system for intensive insulin therapy may improve glycemic control in severely burned children.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]