Interface design and human factors considerations for model-based tight glycemic control in critical care

Assessment of Glycemic Control Protocol (STAR) Through Compliance Analysis Amongst Malaysian ICU Patients

Purpose

This paper presents an assessment of an automated and personalized stochastic targeted (STAR) glycemic control protocol compliance in Malaysian intensive care unit (ICU) patients to ensure an optimized usage.

Patients and Methods

STAR proposes 1–3 hours treatment based on individual insulin sensitivity variation and history of blood glucose, insulin, and nutrition. A total of 136 patients recorded data from STAR pilot trial in Malaysia (2017–quarter of 2019*) were used in the study to identify the gap between chosen administered insulin and nutrition intervention as recommended by STAR, and the real intervention performed.

Results

The results show the percentage of insulin compliance increased from 2017 to first quarter of 2019* and fluctuated in feed administrations. Overall compliance amounted to 98.8% and 97.7% for administered insulin and feed, respectively. There was higher average of 17 blood glucose measurements per day than in other centres that have been using STAR, but longer intervals were selected when recommended. Control safety and performance were similar for all periods showing no obvious correlation to compliance.

Conclusion

The results indicate that STAR, an automated model-based protocol is positively accepted among the Malaysian ICU clinicians to automate glycemic control and the usage can be extended to other hospitals already. Performance could be improved with several propositions.

Accuracy of Blood Glucose Measurement and Blood Glucose Targets

BACKGROUND

To summarize new evidence regarding the methodological aspects of blood glucose control in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

We reviewed the literature on blood glucose control in the ICU up to August 2019 through Ovid Medline and Pubmed.

RESULTS

Since the publication of the Leuven studies, the benefits of glycemic control have been recognized. However, the methodology of blood glucose control, notably the blood glucose measurement accuracy and the insulin titration protocol, plays an important but underestimated role. This may partially explain the negative results of the large, pragmatic multicenter trials and made everyone realize that tight glycemic control with less-frequent glucose measurements on less accurate blood glucose meters is neither feasible nor advisable in daily practice. Blood gas analyzers remain the gold standard. New generation point-of-care blood glucose meters may be an alternative when using whole blood of critically ill patients in combination with a clinically validated insulin dosing algorithm.

CONCLUSION

When implementing blood glucose management in an ICU one needs to take into account the interaction between aimed glycemic target and blood glucose measurement methodology.

The benefits of tight glycemic control in critical illness: Sweeter than assumed?

Hyperglycemia has long been observed amongst critically ill patients and associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Tight glycemic control (TGC) is the clinical practice of controlling blood glucose (BG) down to the “normal” 4.4–6.1 mmol/L range of a healthy adult, aiming to avoid any potential deleterious effects of hyperglycemia. The ground-breaking Leuven trials reported a mortality benefit of approximately 10% when using this technique, which led many to endorse its benefits. In stark contrast, the multi-center normoglycemia in intensive care evaluation–survival using glucose algorithm regulation (NICE-SUGAR) trial, not only failed to replicate this outcome, but showed TGC appeared to be harmful. This review attempts to re-analyze the current literature and suggests that hope for a benefit from TGC should not be so hastily abandoned. Inconsistencies in study design make a like-for-like comparison of the Leuven and NICE-SUGAR trials challenging. Inadequate measures preventing hypoglycemic events are likely to have contributed to the increased mortality observed in the NICE-SUGAR treatment group. New technologies, including predictive models, are being developed to improve the safety of TGC, primarily by minimizing hypoglycemia. Intensive Care Units which are unequipped in trained staff and monitoring capacity would be unwise to attempt TGC, especially considering its yet undefined benefit and the deleterious nature of hypoglycemia. International recommendations now advise clinicians to ensure critically ill patients maintain a BG of <10 mmol/L. Despite encouraging evidence, currently we can only speculate and remain optimistic that the benefit of TGC in clinical practice is sweeter than assumed.

Stochastic targeted (STAR) glycemic control: design, safety, and performance

INTRODUCTION

Tight glycemic control (TGC) has shown benefits but has been difficult to achieve consistently. STAR (Stochastic TARgeted) is a flexible, model-based TGC approach that directly accounts for intra- and interpatient variability with a stochastically derived maximum 5% risk of blood glucose (BG) below 72 mg/dl. This research assesses the safety, efficacy, and clinical burden of a STAR TGC controller modulating both insulin and nutrition inputs in virtual and clinical pilot trials.

METHODS

Clinically validated virtual trials using data from 370 patients in the SPRINT (Specialized Relative Insulin and Nutrition Titration) study were used to design the STAR protocol and test its safety, performance, and required clinical effort prior to clinical pilot trials. Insulin and nutrition interventions were given every 1-3 h as chosen by the nurse to allow them to manage workload. Interventions were designed to maximize the overlap of the model-predicted (5-95(th) percentile) range of BG outcomes with the 72-117 mg/dl band and thus provide a maximum 5% risk of BG <72 mg/dl. Interventions were calculated using clinically validated computer models of human metabolism and its variability in critical illness. Carbohydrate intake (all sources) was selected to maximize intake up to 100% of the American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine (ACCP/SCCM) goal (25 kg/kcal/h). Insulin doses were limited (8 U/h maximum), with limited increases based on current rate (0.5-2.0 U/h). Initial clinical pilot trials involved 3 patients covering ~450 h. Approval was granted by the Upper South A Regional Ethics Committee.

RESULTS

Virtual trials indicate that STAR provides similar glycemic control performance to SPRINT with 2-3 h (maximum) measurement intervals. Time in the 72-126 mg/dl and 72-145 mg/dl bands was equivalent for all controllers, indicating that glycemic outcome differences between protocols were only shifted in this range. Safety from hypoglycemia was improved. Importantly, STAR using 2-3 h (maximum) intervention intervals reduced clinical burden up to 30%, which is clinically very significant. Initial clinical trials showed glycemic performance, safety, and management of inter- and intrapatient variability that matched or exceeded the virtual trial results.

CONCLUSIONS

In virtual trials, STAR TGC provided tight control that maximized the likelihood of BG in a clinically specified glycemic band and reduced hypoglycemia with a maximum 5% (or lower) expected risk of light hypoglycemia (BG <72 mg/dl) via model-based management of intra- and interpatient variability. Clinical workload was self-managed and reduced up to 30% compared with SPRINT. Initial pilot clinical trials matched or exceeded these virtual results.