Comparison between a novel and conventional artificial pancreas for perioperative glycemic control using a closed-loop system

Review Article - Diabetes Technology in the Hospital: An Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There have been many developments in diabetes technology in recent years, with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), insulin pump therapy (CSII) and automated insulin delivery (AID) becoming progressively accepted in outpatient diabetes care. However, the use of such advanced diabetes technology in the inpatient setting is still limited for several reasons, including logistical challenges and staff training needs. On the other hand, hospital settings with altered diet and stress-induced hyperglycemia often pose challenges to tight glycemic control using conventional treatment tools. Integrating smarter glucose monitoring and insulin delivery devices into the increasingly technical hospital environment could reduce diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. This narrative review describes the most recent literature on the use of diabetes technology in the hospital and suggests avenues for further research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Advanced diabetes technology has the potential to improve glycemic control in hospitalized people with and without diabetes, and could add particular value in certain conditions, such as nutrition therapy or perioperative management. Taken together, CGM allows for more accurate and patient-friendly follow-up and ad hoc titration of therapy. AID may also provide benefits, including improved glycemic control and reduced nursing workload. Before advanced diabetes technology can be used on a large scale in the hospital, further research is needed on efficacy, accuracy and safety, while implementation factors such as cost and staff training must also be overcome.

Usefulness of an interprofessional work manual for perioperative glucose control of an artificial pancreas

BACKGROUND

A closed-loop bedside-type artificial pancreas for perioperative glucose control has previously been introduced. However, artificial pancreas therapy was often interrupted due to continuous blood sampling failure. We developed an interprofessional work manual to reduce the interruption time of artificial pancreatic therapy for perioperative blood glucose control due to continuous blood sampling failure. This study aimed to investigate the usefulness of this manual.

METHODS

The manual consisted of the following sections: (1) the roles of the professionals in the preparation and management of the artificial pancreas, (2) how to address continuous blood sampling failure, and (3) checkpoints for interprofessional transfer of the artificial pancreas. We compared the results before the introduction of the manual and 2 years after the introduction of the manual.

RESULTS

There were 35 and 37 patients in the Before and After groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in patient backgrounds between the two groups, although there was significantly less blood loss in the After group (1164 vs. 366 mL; p < 0.001). The mean artificial pancreas therapy and artificial pancreas therapy interruption times were 847 min and 20 min, respectively. Artificial pancreas therapy interruption time (34 vs. 8 min; p = 0.078) and time per interruption (24 vs. 4 min; p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the After group than in the Before group.

CONCLUSIONS

The interprofessional working manual was useful in reducing the artificial pancreatic therapy interruption time for perioperative glucose control.

Effects of an artificial pancreas on postoperative inflammation in patients with esophageal cancer

PURPOSES

Subtotal esophagectomy for esophageal cancer (EC) is associated with high morbidity rates. Tight glycemic control using an artificial pancreas (AP) is one of the promising strategies to reduce postoperative inflammation and morbidities. However, the effects of tight glycemic control using AP in patients with EC are yet to be fully elucidated.

METHOD

This study reviewed 96 patients with EC who underwent subtotal esophagectomy. The postoperative inflammation parameters and morbidity rates were compared between patients who used the AP (n = 27) or not (control group, n = 69). AP is a closed-loop system that comprises a continuous glucose monitor and an insulin pump.

RESULTS

The numbers of white blood cells (WBC) and Neutrophils (Neut) were noted to be lower in the AP group than in the control group, but with no significant difference. The ratio in which the number of WBC, Neut, and CRP on each postoperative day (POD) was divided by those tested preoperatively was used to standardize the results. The ratio of WBC and Neut on 1POD was significantly lower in the AP group than in the control group. The rate of surgical site infection was lower in the AP group than in the control group.

CONCLUSION

AP significantly decreased WBC and Neut on 1POD; this suggests the beneficial effects of AP in alleviating postoperative inflammation.

Managing Patients with Insulin Pumps and Continuous Glucose Monitors in the Hospital: to Wear or Not to Wear

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As the prevalence of diabetes mellitus in the USA continues to rise, so does the popularity of diabetes management devices such as continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps. The use of this technology has been shown to improve outpatient glycemic outcomes and quality of life and oftentimes may be continued in the hospital setting. Our aim is to review the current guidelines and available evidence on the continuation of insulin pumps and CGMs in the inpatient setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with diabetes are at higher risk for hospitalizations and complications due to hyper- or hypoglycemia, metabolic co-morbidities, or as seen recently, more severe illness from infections such as SARS-CoV-2. The maintenance of euglycemia is important to decrease both morbidity and mortality in the hospital setting. There is consensus among experts and medical societies that inpatient use of diabetes technology in carefully selected patients with proper institutional protocols is safe and can improve inpatient glycemic outcomes and reduce hypoglycemia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, CGMs played a vital role in managing hyperglycemia in some hospitalized patients. Insulin pumps and CGMs have the potential to transform glycemic management in hospitalized patients. In order for institutions to safely and effectively incorporate these technologies on their inpatient units, hospital-based providers will need to be able to understand how to manage and utilize these devices in their practice in conjunction with diabetes experts.

Continuous Glucose Monitors and Automated Insulin Dosing Systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline

This article is the work product of the Continuous Glucose Monitor and Automated Insulin Dosing Systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline Panel, which was organized by Diabetes Technology Society and met virtually on April 23, 2020. The guideline panel consisted of 24 international experts in the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and automated insulin dosing (AID) systems representing adult endocrinology, pediatric endocrinology, obstetrics and gynecology, advanced practice nursing, diabetes care and education, clinical chemistry, bioengineering, and product liability law. The panelists reviewed the medical literature pertaining to five topics: (1) continuation of home CGMs after hospitalization, (2) initiation of CGMs in the hospital, (3) continuation of AID systems in the hospital, (4) logistics and hands-on care of hospitalized patients using CGMs and AID systems, and (5) data management of CGMs and AID systems in the hospital. The panelists then developed three types of recommendations for each topic, including clinical practice (to use the technology optimally), research (to improve the safety and effectiveness of the technology), and hospital policies (to build an environment for facilitating use of these devices) for each of the five topics. The panelists voted on 78 proposed recommendations. Based on the panel vote, 77 recommendations were classified as either strong or mild. One recommendation failed to reach consensus. Additional research is needed on CGMs and AID systems in the hospital setting regarding device accuracy, practices for deployment, data management, and achievable outcomes. This guideline is intended to support these technologies for the management of hospitalized patients with diabetes.

Impact of using a perioperative artificial endocrine pancreas in pancreatic resection

AIM

Pancreatectomy causes both hyperglycemia, secondary to surgical stress, and pancreatic diabetes, which leads to difficult-to-control postoperative blood glucose levels. We investigated whether using an artificial pancreas perioperatively to provide appropriate blood glucose control could reduce postoperative complications following pancreatectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 52 patients who underwent pancreatectomy at Tokushima University Hospital from 2015 to 2019. The most recent 26/52 patients received perioperative blood glucose control using an artificial pancreas. Postoperative blood glucose control with manual insulin injections based on a sliding scale was performed in the earlier 26 patients (controls). We compared surgical outcomes between the artificial pancreas group and the control group.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in patients' white blood cell or neutrophil counts, prognostic nutritional index, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, and C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio on postoperative day 1; however, lymphocyte counts were higher in the artificial pancreas group. The number of serious complications of Clavien-Dindo grade >IIIa was significantly lower in the artificial pancreas group (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Using an artificial pancreas for perioperative blood glucose control in patients undergoing pancreatectomy decreased the number of serious complications through proper management of blood glucose levels without hypoglycemia, and may influence peripheral lymphocytes.

An Electronic Health Record-Integrated Computerized Intravenous Insulin Infusion Protocol: Clinical Outcomes and in Silico Adjustment

BACKGROUND

We aimed to describe the outcome of a computerized intravenous insulin infusion (CII) protocol integrated to the electronic health record (EHR) system and to improve the CII protocol in silico using the EHR-based predictors of the outcome.

METHODS

Clinical outcomes of the patients who underwent the CII protocol between July 2016 and February 2017 and their matched controls were evaluated. In the CII protocol group (n=91), multivariable binary logistic regression analysis models were used to determine the independent associates with a delayed response (taking ≥6.0 hours for entering a glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL). The CII protocol was adjusted in silico according to the EHR-based parameters obtained in the first 3 hours of CII.

RESULTS

Use of the CII protocol was associated with fewer subjects with hypoglycemia alert values (P=0.003), earlier (P=0.002), and more stable (P=0.017) achievement of a glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL. Initial glucose level (P=0.001), change in glucose during the first 2 hours (P=0.026), and change in insulin infusion rate during the first 3 hours (P=0.029) were independently associated with delayed responses. Increasing the insulin infusion rate temporarily according to these parameters in silico significantly reduced delayed responses (P<0.0001) without hypoglycemia, especially in refractory patients.

CONCLUSION

Our CII protocol enabled faster and more stable glycemic control than conventional care with minimized risk of hypoglycemia. An EHR-based adjustment was simulated to reduce delayed responses without increased incidence of hypoglycemia.

Advancing the Use of CGM Devices in a Non-ICU Setting

Improvements in glycemic control using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems have been demonstrated in the outpatient setting. Among hospitalized patients the use of CGM is largely investigational, particularly in the non-ICU setting. Although there is no commercially available closed-loop system, it has recently been evaluated in the non-critical care setting. Both CGMs and closed-loop systems may lead to improved glycemic control, decreased length of stay, reduced risk of adverse events related to severe hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. Limitations of inpatient use of CGM and closed-loop systems include lack of FDA approvals, inexperience with this technology, and costs related to supplies. Significant investment may be necessary for hospital staff training and for development of infrastructure to support inpatient use. Additional limitations for CGM systems includes potential inaccuracy of interstitial glucose measurements due to medication interferences, sensor lag, or sensor drift. Limitations for closed-loop systems also includes need for routine monitoring to detect infusion site issues as well as monitoring to ensure adequate insulin supply in reservoir to avoid abrupt cessation of insulin infusion leading to severe hyperglycemia. Hospital staff must be familiar with trouble-shooting and conversion to alternative mode of insulin delivery in the event of insulin pump malfunction. Given these complexities, implementation of closed-loop systems may require involvement of an endocrinology team, limiting widespread adoption. This article reviews current state of CGM and closed-loop system use in the non-ICU setting, available literature, advantages and limitations, as well as suggestions for future CGM design, specifically for the inpatient setting.

Glucose Management Technologies for the Critically Ill

Hyperglycemia is common in the intensive care unit (ICU) both in patients with and without a previous diagnosis of diabetes. The optimal glucose range in the ICU population is still a matter of debate. Given the risk of hypoglycemia associated with intensive insulin therapy, current recommendations include treating hyperglycemia after two consecutive glucose >180 mg/dL with target levels of 140-180 mg/dL for most patients. The optimal method of sampling glucose and delivery of insulin in critically ill patients remains elusive. While point of care glucose meters are not consistently accurate and have to be used with caution, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is not standard of care, nor is it generally recommended for inpatient use. Intravenous insulin therapy using paper or electronic protocols remains the preferred approach for critically ill patients. The advent of new technologies, such as electronic glucose management, CGM, and closed-loop systems, promises to improve inpatient glycemic control in the critically ill with lower rates of hypoglycemia.

Diabetes Technology Update: Use of Insulin Pumps and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Hospital

The use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems has gained wide acceptance in diabetes care. These devices have been demonstrated to be clinically valuable, improving glycemic control and reducing risks of hypoglycemia in ambulatory patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. Approximately 30-40% of patients with type 1 diabetes and an increasing number of insulin-requiring patients with type 2 diabetes are using pump and sensor technology. As the popularity of these devices increases, it becomes very likely that hospital health care providers will face the need to manage the inpatient care of patients under insulin pump therapy and CGM. The American Diabetes Association advocates allowing patients who are physically and mentally able to continue to use their pumps when hospitalized. Health care institutions must have clear policies and procedures to allow the patient to continue to receive CSII treatment to maximize safety and to comply with existing regulations related to self-management of medication. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether CSII therapy and CGM systems in the hospital are associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with intermittent monitoring and conventional insulin treatment or with a favorable cost-benefit ratio.

Current status and issues of the artificial pancreas: abridged English translation of a special issue in Japanese

Surgical stress induces hyperglycemia and gives rise to glucose toxicity, which causes infectious diseases, resulting in unfavorable surgical outcomes. Intensive insulin treatment can control short- and long-term complications in patients with not only diabetes mellitus, but also surgical diabetes; however, it is associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia. The wearable artificial pancreas was originally developed to control glucose levels in patients with type 1 diabetes, progressing to a device with enhanced stability and safety for these patients. Its usability has further progressed to include patients with type 2 diabetes. The bedside artificial pancreas is the only closed-loop-type artificial pancreas which can maintain stable glycemic control in accordance with a target blood glucose range, based on the patient's actual blood glucose levels. Moreover, this stable glycemic control with a low variation in blood glucose concentration within the target range is produced without any hypoglycemia. Significant advances of this device will now occur due to the approval of treatment for perioperative glycemic control by the Japanese Health Care Insurance System in 2016. Along with an increase in the number of mainly elderly patients with low glucose tolerance, it is expected that the role of the artificial pancreas will increase in the future. Considering the current state and expense of regenerative and transplant medicine, along with donor shortages, further development of the artificial pancreas and associated glycemic control can be expected.

Management of Type 1 Diabetes in the Hospital Setting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article was to review recent guideline recommendations on glycemic target, glucose monitoring, and therapeutic strategies, while providing practical recommendations for the management of medical and surgical patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) admitted to critical and non-critical care settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies evaluating safety and efficacy of insulin pump therapy, continuous glucose monitoring, electronic glucose management systems, and closed loop systems for the inpatient management of hyperglycemia are described. Due to the increased prevalence and life expectancy of patients with type 1 diabetes, a growing number of these patients require hospitalization every year. Inpatient diabetes management is complex and is best provided by a multidisciplinary diabetes team. In the absence of such resource, providers and health care staff must become familiar with the features of this condition to avoid complications such as severe hyperglycemia, ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia, or glycemic variability. We reviewed most recent guidelines and relevant literature in the topic to provide practical recommendations for the inpatient management of patients with T1D.