This meta-analysis aims to update the evidence for the effects of intensive glucose control (IGC) on the outcomes among critically ill patients. We performed a systematic literature review from inception through December, 2017 by two independent authors by searching PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. Randomized clinical trials of the effects of IGC compared with conventional glucose control were selected. Random-effect models were applied to calculate summary relative risks (RRs) for the related outcomes. Of 4247 records identified, we abstracted data from 27 relevant trials for meta-analysis. Compared with patients receiving conventional glucose control (controls), patients with IGC did not have significantly decreased risk of short-term mortality (in-hospital mortality or intensive care unit (ICU) mortality) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92–1.06) or 3- to 6-month mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97–1.08). These results remained constant among different study settings including surgical ICUs, medical ICUs or mixed ICUs. Similarly, we also found that patients with IGC did not have significantly lower risk of sepsis (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89–1.11) or new need for dialysis (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84–1.11). However, patients with IGC had almost 4-fold increase in risk of hypoglycemia (RR 4.86, 95% CI 3.16–7.46). In conclusion, in this updated meta-analysis of published trials, critically ill patients receiving IGC were found to be at neutral risk for short-term or 3- 6-month mortality, risk of sepsis or new need for dialysis, but at higher risk of hypoglycemia.
The past two decades have witnessed great progress on the research regarding optimal glycemic control strategy for critically ill patients based on several randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, there are still debates on this topic. Numerous studies have reported that dysglycemia including hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia or serum blood fluctuation is an independent risk factor of mortality for critically ill patients, especially for those with diabetes mellitus (1, 2, 3, 4).
In 2001, Berghe and his colleagues found that intensive glucose control (IGC) could significantly reduce the mortality for surgical patients with mechanical ventilation (5). Since then, IGC has become a general practice for those critically ill patients. However, several other clinical trials reported the neutral effects of IGC for these patients (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). Moreover, one of the most famous trials, the Normogylcemia in Intensive Care Evaluation-Survival Using Glucose Algorithm Regulation (NICE-SUGAR) trial (12), found that IGC increased mortality among adults in the intensive care unit (ICU), which could potentially result from the increased incidence of hypoglycemia based on a post hoc analysis of the same trial (13). Evidence also demonstrated that severe hypoglycemia was strongly associated with hospital mortality, which was considered as an interactive factor for mortality (3, 14, 15). With all those dubious results, we aimed to reassess the existing uncertain evidence regarding this issue using the systematic review and meta-analysis of all published literature.
We performed the meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (16). Primary sources of the reviewed studies, including PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for citations from initials through December 2017. The following words were searched through the combinations of the keywords and text words: (ICU OR intensive care unit OR intensive care OR critical care OR critical illness OR postoperative care OR cardiac care facility* OR coronary care OR recovery room OR burn unit OR critically ill OR cardiac care OR cardiac care unit OR CCU) AND (insulin OR blood glucose OR intensive insulin OR glycemic control) AND (randomized OR randomised OR placebo OR randomly OR trial). Three reviewers (F S M, M M and S P) independently conducted online database searches and manual searches of reference lists from potentially eligible articles. The search strategies for the three databases were provided in Supplementary Methods (see section on supplementary data given at the end of this article).
RCTs evaluating the effects of IGC with conventional glucose control for the management of adult critically ill patients were eligible for inclusion. We involved trials reporting the outcomes like short-term mortality (in-hospital mortality or ICU mortality) or 3- to 6-month mortality, risk of hypoglycemia, sepsis and new need for dialysis.
Trials that did not include the above mentioned outcomes or have sufficient data to calculate effect estimates were excluded from meta-analysis. Three investigators (Y F, Y S and J Z) independently conducted trial selection. When overlapping trials were included, only the largest one with the most comprehensive data or analyses was involved.
Three authors (Y F, Y S and J Z) independently extracted data on relevant variables from all trials using a predesigned standardized abstraction form, which were cross-checked and finally determined by a third author (Y C). Study-level data included first author, publication year, ICU type, sample size patient disease, patient age, percent of the diabetes cases, follow-up duration, intervention, daily insulin dose, target blood glucose level, achieved blood glucose level and outcome reported. The corresponding authors of original articles were contacted for missing data if necessary.
Trial bias assessment
Two authors (Y F and Y C) independently assessed trial bias of each included trial using the Cochrane collaboration’s tool (17). This validated scale covered three aspects to assess the methodological bias in terms of random allocation, double-blinding and withdrawals and dropouts for intervention or control groups, with higher scores representing lower risk of bias.
The primary outcomes were 3- to 6-month mortality and short-term mortality. The former was defined as in hospital mortality or ICU mortality, mainly within 28-day mortality. When both in-hospital mortality and ICU mortality were reported in the same trial, we selected in hospital mortality as 3- 6-month mortality. The latter was defined as mortality at the time of 3 and 6 months. The secondary outcomes included risk of hypoglycemia, sepsis and new need for dialysis. Hypoglycemia was defined as patients with serum glucose level less than 2.2 mmol/L or 40 mg/dL. Sepsis was defined as patients who were diagnosed as sepsis, septicemia, bacteremia or having positive blood cultures. We defined new need for dialysis as patients who required dialysis because of renal failure for the first time.
The result of each trial outcome was allocated as dichotomous variable. All analyses were based on data reported as intention to treat. A P value less than 0.05 was considered as significant difference. Considering the clinical (patient demographics and treatment strategy), methodological (randomization or outcome reported) and statistical (sample size) heterogeneity among included trials, we have applied random-effect model to combine effect estimates. Summary RRs and the corresponding 95% CIs were calculated and compared with a DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model, a method accounting for both within-study variance and between-study heterogeneity. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed by Q test and quantified by I 2 statistic and with an I 2 value being less than 0.10 considering statistically significant (18). Furthermore, we conducted pre-planned subgroup analyses for all the five outcomes based on the clinical variables available to investigate the potential sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses were also performed by omitting a single trial each time and recalculating the effect estimates to investigate the robustness of our summary statistics. The presence of publication bias was evaluated by using the Begg’s test and Egger’s test besides funnel plot symmetry (19, 20). The Duvall and Tweedle trim-and-fill model was used to adjust effect estimates (21). All meta-analyses were performed and figures were generated in Stata, version 14.0 (StataCorp).
Twenty-seven trials (Fig. 1), including 17,582 patients, assessed the effect of IGC therapy (IGC therapy vs conventional glucose control therapy) in patients with critical surgical or medical illness (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41). Detailed clinical characteristics of the trials are reported in Table 1. IGC therapy was conducted in surgical ICUs in eight trials, five medical ICUs and fourteen surgical mixed with medical ICUs. The median sample size of the included trials was 240 (range, 20–6104). The mean percent of diabetic patients was 22%. The two intervention procedures for most of trials were insulin infusion and subcutaneous insulin injection. Target blood glucose level ranged from less than 6.9–12.5 mmol/L in trial group and within 4.4–6.1 mmol/L (n = 25) or 6.1–8.3 mmol/L (n = 2) in the control group. Moderate to higher risk of bias was found due to inappropriate double-blinding method of trial design for most of the trials (data provided upon request).
Characteristics of the included trials.
|Study||Year||ICU type||Sample size||Patient disease||Mean age, year||Diabetes, %||Follow-up duration||Intervention||Mean daily insulin dose, IU/day||Target blood glucose level, mmol/L||Achieved blood glucose level, mmol/L||Outcomes included in meta-analysis|
|Wang et al.||2017||Surgical||88||Traumatic brain injury||TG 46.7; CG 45.1||19.3||6 months||Both groups: insulin infusion||NA||CG: <11.11 TG: 4.4–6.1||NA||Mortality|
|Finfer et al.||2015||Mixed||391||Operative: TG 80, CG 75; Non-operative: TG 123, CG 113||TG 41.9; CG 41.2||5.4||2 years||Both groups: insulin infusion||CG: 7.6 TG: 52.8||CG: <10.0 TG: 4.5–6.0||Mean BG CG: 7.7 TG: 7.7||Mortality, hypoglycemia, new need for dialysis, sepsis|
|Kalfon et al.||2014||Mixed||2648||Surgical (emergency): TG 417, CG 380; Surgical (scheduled): TG 121, CG 141; Nonsurgical: TG 798, CG 791; Polytrauma: TG 91, CG 85||TG 61; CG 62||TG 19.6; CG 20.9||90 days||Both groups: insulin infusion||Median dose TG: 43.1 CG:34.1||CG: ≤10.0 TG: 4.4–6.1||Mean BG CG: 9.1 TG: 9.4||Mortality, hypoglycemia, sepsis|
|Okabayashi et al.||2014||Surgical||447||Hepato-biliary pancreatic diseases||TG 66.7; CG 66.4||27.1||Hospital stay||Both groups: insulin infusion||CG: 77 TG: 101||CG: 7.7–10.0 TG: 4.4–6.1||NA||Mortality|
|Zuo et al.||2012||Mixed||30||Medical: severe acute pancreatitis||48||0||Hospital stay||CG: subcutaneous insulin injection TG: insulin infusion||CG: 32.4 TG: 71.4||CG: 10–11.1 TG: 6.1–8.3||Mean BG CG: NA TG: 7.46||Mortality|
|Cao et al.||2011||Surgical||179||Gastric cancer, 100||58.8||100||28 days||Both groups: insulin infusion||NA||CG: 10–11.0 TG: 4.4–6.1||Mean BG CG: 9.9 TG: 5.5||Mortality, hypoglycemia, sepsis|
|Arabi et al.||2011||Mixed||240||Medical: m83 Surgical: m17||51.1||40||180 days||Both groups: insulin infusion||CG: 23 TG: 62.8||CG: 10–11.1 TG: 4.4–6.1||Mean BG CG: 8.6 TG: 6.2||Mortality, hypoglycemia, new need for dialysis, sepsis|
|Coester et al.||2010||Surgical||88||Severe traumatic brain injury, 100||38.5||1.2||6 months||CG: subcutaneous insulin injection TG: insulin infusion||NA||CG: <10 TG: 4.4–6.1||Mean BG CG: 8.06 TG: 6.85||Mortality, hypoglycemia, sepsis|
|Green et al.||2010||Medical||81||Ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, 35; traumatic brain injury, 49||51||NA||90 days||CG: subcutaneous insulin injection TG: insulin infusion||CG: 1.4 IU/h TG: 2.39 IU/h||CG: ≤8.3 TG: 4.4–6.1||Mean BG CG: 7.9 TG: 6.2||Mortality, hypoglycemia, sepsis|
|Annan et al.||2010||Mixed||509||Medical: 75 Surgical: 11||64||NA||180 days||CG: subcutaneous insulin injection TG: insulin infusion||CG: 46 TG: 71 (median)||CG: not defined TG: 4.4–6.1||NA||Mortality, hypoglycemia|
|Bilotta et al.||2009||Surgical||483||Neurosurgery, 100||57.1||10||6 months||Both groups: insulin infusion||CG: 21 TG: 54||CG: <11.94 TG: 4.44–6.11||Mean BG CG: 7.96 TG: 5.13||Mortality, sepsis|
|Yang et al.||2009||Surgical||240||Severe traumatic brain injury, 100||45.5||10||6 months||Both groups: insulin infusion||NA||CG: 10–11.1 TG: 4.4–6.1||NA||Mortality, hypoglycemia|
|Cavalcanti et al.||2009||Medical||112||Respiratory, 32; sepsis, cardiovascular, neurologic, 44||59.9||30||90 days||CG: subcutaneous insulin injection TG: insulin infusion||NA||CG: <8.3 TG: 4.4–6.1||Median BG CG: 8.8 TG: 7.1||Hypoglycemia|
|Kreisel et al.||2009||Medical||40||Acute ischemic stroke, 100||71.6||33||120 days||CG: subcutaneous insulin injection TG: insulin infusion||CG: 5.4 TG: 13.3||CG: <11.1 TG: 4.44–6.11||Mean BG CG: 8.01 TG: 6.49||Mortality|
|Finfer et al.||2009||Mixed||6104||Medical: 62 Surgical: 38||62.2||20||90 days||Both groups: insulin infusion||CG: 16.9 TG: 50.2||CG: <10 TG: 4.5–6.0||Mean BG CG: 8.0wTG: 6.4||Mortality, hypoglycemia, new need for dialysis, sepsis|
|Preiser et al.||2009||Mixed||1101||Medical: 40 Surgical: 47 Trauma: 13||64.6||18||Hospital stay||Both groups: insulin infusion||Median rate CG: 0.32 IU/h TG: 1.30 IU/h||CG: 7.8–10.0 TG: 4.4–6.1||Median BG CG: 8.0 TG: 6.5||Mortality, hypoglycemia|
|Taslimi et al.||2009||Mixed||129||Medical: 75 Surgical: 25||55.5||53||Hospital stay||Both groups: insulin infusion||NR||CG: 6.9–12.5 TG: 4.4–6.1||NA||Mortality, new need for dialysis|
|Savioli et al.||2009||Mixed||90||Medical: 62 Surgical: 38||61||13||90 days||Both groups: insulin infusion||CG: 36 TG: 57||CG: 10–11.1 TG: 4.4–6.1||Mean BG CG: 8.8 TG: 6.2||Mortality|
|Arabi et al.||2008||Mixed||523||Medical: 83 Surgical: 17||52.4||40||Hospital stay||Both groups: insulin infusion||CG: 31.4 TG: 71.2||CG: 10–11.1 TG: 4.4–6.1||Mean BG CG: 9.5 TG: 6.4||Mortality, hypoglycemia, new need for dialysis, sepsis|
|Brunkhorst et al.||2008||Mixed||537||Sepsis Medical: 47 Surgical: 53||64.6||30||90 days||Both groups: insulin infusion||CG: 5 TG: 32 (median)||CG: 10–11.1 TG: 4.4–6.1||Mean morning BG CG: 8.4 TG: 6.2||Mortality, hypoglycemia, new need for dialysis|
|De La Rosa et al.||2008||Mixed||504||Medical: 49 Surgical: 16 Trauma: 35||46.6||12||Hospital stay||Both groups: insulin infusion||CG: 12.5 TG: 52.4||CG: 10–11.1TG: 4.4–6.1||Median morning BG CG: 8.2 TG: 6.5||Mortality, hypoglycemia, new need for dialysis|
|Iapichino et al.||2008||Mixed||90||Sepsis Medical: 64 Surgical: 32||62.3||17||90 days||Both groups: insulin infusion||CG: 38.8 TG: 74.5||CG: 10–11.1 TG: 4.4–6.1||Mean BG CG: 9.0 TG: 6.1||Mortality, hypoglycemia|
|Oksanen et al.||2007||Medical||90||Out of hospital ventricular fibrillation, 100||63.7||12||30 days||Both groups: insulin infusion||CG: 12.5 TG: 22||CG: 6.0–8.0 TG: 4.0–6.0||Median BG CG: 6.4 TG: 5.0||Mortality, hypoglycemia|
|Mitchell et al.||2006||Mixed||70||Medical: 61 Surgical: 3 9||65.4||14||Hospital stay||Both groups: insulin infusion||CG: 0 TG: 35.7 (median)||CG: 10–11.1 TG: 4.4–6.1||Median BG CG: 7.9 TG: 5.4||Mortality, hypoglycemia|
|Hoedemaekers et al.||2005||Surgical||20||CABG, 100||64.2||0||Hospital stay||Both groups: insulin infusion||NA||CG: <11.1 TG: 4.4–6.1||NA||Hypoglycemia|
|Van den Berghe et al.||2001||Surgical||1548||Cardiac surgery, 63||62.8||13||Hospital stay||Both groups: insulin infusion||CG: 33 TG: 71||CG: 10–11.1 TG: 4.4–6.1||Mean morning BG CG: 8.5 TG: 5.7||Mortality, hypoglycemia, new need for dialysis, sepsis|
|Van den Berghe et al.||2001||Medical||1200||Respiratory, 42.7; gastrointestinal, liver, 25.5||63.5||17||90 days||Both groups: insulin infusion||CG: 10 TG: 59||CG: 10–11.1 TG: 4.4–6.1||Mean morning BG CG: 8.49 TG: 6.16||Mortality, hypoglycemia, new need for dialysis, sepsis|
BG, blood glucose; CG, conventional glucose control; ICU, intensive care unit; NA, not available; TG, intensive glucose control.
Results of meta-analyses, sensitivity analyses and publication bias assessment
3–6 month mortality
The data for the risk of 3- to 6-month mortality were available in 14 trials. The summary RR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.97–1.08; P = 0.374). There was no evidence of heterogeneity (I 2 = 0; P = 0.619) (Fig. 2 and Table 2). Subgroup analyses indicated that for different ICU types of surgical, medical and mixed ICUs, the pooled RRs were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.81–1.13), 0.98 (95% CI, 0.84–1.16) and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.95–1.12), respectively, which was consistent with the result of the main analysis. Excluding one study at a time did not significantly alter the summary RR (Supplementary Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 6). There was no evidence of publication bias using the Egger’s test (P = 0.847) or Begg’s test (P = 0.101) (Supplementary Table 1).
Subgroup analyses for effects of intensive glucose control on the risk of 3–6 month mortality for critically ill patients stratified by covariates.
|Stratification covariates||RR||95% CI||Heterogeneity (I2 statistics; %)||No. of included studies||P for interaction|
|Patient mean age||0.325|
|Mean/median daily insulin dose||0.257|
CI, confidence interval; RR, relative risk.
Twenty trials reported the data regarding IGC and the risk of short-term mortality. The pooled RR was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.92–1.06; P = 0.741). There was low evidence of heterogeneity (I 2 = 15.8%; P = 0.257) (Fig. 3 and Table 3). Subgroup analyses revealed that the summary RRs for surgical, medical and mixed ICUs were 0.82 (95% CI, 0.63–1.05), 0.99 (95% CI, 0.84–1.17) and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.94–1.10), respectively, which was in accord with the result of the main analysis. Sensitivity analysis did not significantly change the summary RR (Supplementary Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table 7). No evidence of publication bias was detected using the Egger’s test (P = 0.975) or Begg’s test (P = 0.871).
Subgroup analyses for effects of intensive glucose control on the risk of short-term mortality for critically ill patients stratified by covariates.
|Stratification covariates||RR||95% CI||Heterogeneity (I2 statistics; %)||No. of included studies||P for interaction|
|Patient mean age||0.644|
|Mean/median daily insulin dose||0.281|
CI, confidence interval; RR, relative risk.
Risk of hypoglycemia
The data for the risk of hypoglycemia were available in 19 trials. The summary RR was 4.86 (95% CI, 3.16–7.46; P < 0.001) with significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 76.1%; P < 0.001) (Supplementary Fig. 6 and Supplementary Table 2), indicating patients with IGC had almost 4-fold increase in risk of hypoglycemia. Subgroup analyses indicated that for different ICU types of surgical, medical and mixed ICUs, the pooled RRs were 3.90 (95% CI, 1.60–9.49), 6.03 (95% CI, 3.89–9.34) and 5.07 (95% CI, 2.80–9.18), respectively, which was consistent with the result of the main analysis. Sensitivity analysis by excluding one study at a time indicated the robustness of the pooled result (Supplementary Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 8). There was no evidence of publication bias using the Egger’s test (P = 0.149) or Begg’s test (P = 0.726).
Risk of sepsis
Thirteen trials provided the data regarding analysis of IGC and the risk of sepsis. The pooled RR was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.89–1.11; P = 0.973). There was low evidence of heterogeneity (I 2 = 19.8%; P = 0.243) (Supplementary Fig. 7 and Supplementary Table 3). Subgroup analyses found that the pooled RRs for surgical, medical and mixed ICUs were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.42–1.48), 0.62 (95% CI, 0.22–1.72) and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.94–1.13), respectively, which was in accord with the result of the main analysis. Sensitivity analysis did not significantly change the summary RR (Supplementary Fig. 4 and Supplementary Table 9). No evidence of publication bias was detected using the Egger’s test (P = 0.384) or Begg’s test (P = 0.360).
Risk of new dialysis
Nine trials were included in the analysis of IGC and the risk of new dialysis. The summary RR was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84–1.11; P = 0.631) with low-to-moderate heterogeneity (I 2 = 29.1%; P = 0.186) (Supplementary Fig. 8 and Supplementary Table 4). Subgroup analysis revealed that for different ICU types of surgical, medical and mixed ICUs, the pooled RRs were 0.59 (95% CI, 0.40–0.88), 0.92 (95% CI, 0.74–1.14) and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.96–1.17), respectively, which was consistent with the result of the main analysis. Sensitivity analysis by excluding one study at a time did not alter the main result (Supplementary Fig. 5 and Supplementary Table 10). There was no evidence of publication bias using the Egger’s test (P = 0.459) or Begg’s test (P = 0.917).
In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies, neutral effects in the risk of 3- to 6-month mortality, short-term mortality, sepsis and new dialysis for critically ill patients with IGC intervention. However, significant increase in the risk of hypoglycemia was noted for those patients. These effects appeared to have similar trend in different ICU settings including surgical, medical and mixed ICUs.
Our findings are consistent with three previous meta-analyses and network meta-analyses of IGC and outcome in critically ill patient (42, 43, 44), but included more outcome measures including risk of 3- to 6-month mortality, short-term mortality, hypoglycemia, sepsis and new dialysis with a relative larger sample size and more detailed sensitivity and trim-and-fill method analyses. To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive meta-analysis summarizing results for the effects of IGC and adult critically ill patients treated in ICUs. The null effects for IGC intervention might result from the few studies included in this subset with limited sample size which should be further studied in the future.
The strengths of this updated meta-analysis were as follows. Firstly, we developed sensitive and comprehensive search strategies of all the electronic databases, enabling the process of literature screening and eligibility criteria more rigorously, and reporting the findings of meta-analyses more transparently. Second, we did not apply language or publication date limits during the search of the three major databases, making it less possible to miss some important publications which could be one major source of publication bias. Thirdly, at least two or three investigators independently selected trials, cross-checked them and identified the final included trials. Finally, one important strength was that we included five most commonly investigated and major outcomes to make the study one of the most comprehensive ones regarding this topic. Moreover, we conducted thorough subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses and applied trim-and-filled method to test between-study heterogeneity and confirm the robustness of the results for each outcome, which made the results more reliable with the largest sample size ever involved.
This meta-analysis has some limitations. First, though low statistical heterogeneity for most of the meta-analyses was detected (with I 2 statistic less than 20% in four of five outcomes except risk of hypoglycemia), still we noted that the included patients were rather different among trials, including surgical ICUs, medical ICUs or mixed ones. Another potential limitation of this meta-analysis is the lack of patient-level data. There was variation in the type of insulin, the dose and mode of administration (subcutaneous vs infusion), the duration of follow-up and the combination of concomitant therapy, which we did not explore most of these factors with subgroup analyses due to the unavailability of the data. Thirdly, not all trials reported on all outcomes of interest, and some of the trials were not designed to measure these outcomes. However, this updated meta-analysis has been strengthened by the inclusion of all RCTs regarding this topic.
On the basis of this updated meta-analysis, we conclude that IGC offers no significant benefits for critically ill patients in terms of 3- to 6-month mortality, short-term mortality, sepsis and new dialysis, but adds the risk of hypoglycemia. We advocated that future well-designed RCTs in specific subgroups (eg. in diabetic or non-diabetic patients, in patients with different daily insulin dose, etc.) or with other study outcomes (such as cardiovascular related mortality) should be conducted.
This is linked to the online version of the paper at https://doi.org/10.1530/EC-18-0393.
Declaration of interest
The authors declare that there is no conﬂict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.
This work was supported by Doctoral Special Research Fund Project for Qiqihar Medical College (project no. QMSI2017B-04) and Qiqihar City Science and Technology Plan Project (project no. SFGG-201767).
YangMGuoQZhangXSunSWangYZhaoLHuELiC. Intensive insulin therapy on infection rate, days in NICU, in-hospital mortality and neurological outcome in severe traumatic brain injury patients: a randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2009 46 753–758. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.004)
KalfonPGiraudeauBIchaiCGuerriniABrechotNCinottiRDequinPFRiu-PoulencBMontraversPAnnaneDet al. Tight computerized versus conventional glucose control in the ICU: a randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Medicine 2014 40 171–181. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-013-3189-0)
FinferSChittockDLiYFosterDDhingraVBellomoRCookDDodekPHebertPHendersonWet al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury: long-term follow-up of a subgroup of patients from the NICE-SUGAR study. Intensive Care Medicine 2015 41 1037–1047. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3757-6)
ShojimaNHaraKNomaHYamauchiTKadowakiTWangYLiJPSongYLZhaoQH. Intensive insulin therapy for preventing postoperative infection in patients with traumatic brain injury: a randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Medicine 2017 96 e6458. (https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000006458)
CaoSGRenJAShenBChenDZhouYBLiJS. Intensive versus conventional insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes patients undergoing D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial. World Journal of Surgery 2011 35 85–92. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-010-0797-5)
ArabiYMTamimHMDharGSAl-DawoodAAl-SultanMSakkijhaMHKahoulSHBritsR. Permissive underfeeding and intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2011 93 569–577. (https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.110.005074)
PreiserJCDevosPRuiz-SantanaSMelotCAnnaneDGroeneveldJIapichinoGLeverveXNitenbergGSingerPet al. A prospective randomised multi-centre controlled trial on tight glucose control by intensive insulin therapy in adult intensive care units: the Glucontrol study. Intensive Care Medicine 2009 35 1738–1748. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-009-1585-2)
KreiselSHBerschinUMHammesHPLewelingHBertschTHennericiMGSchwarzS. Pragmatic management of hyperglycaemia in acute ischaemic stroke: safety and feasibility of intensive intravenous insulin treatment. Cerebrovascular Diseases 2009 27 167–175. (https://doi.org/10.1159/000185608)
CavalcantiABSilvaEPereiraAJCaldeira-FilhoMAlmeidaFPWestphalGABeimsRFernandesCCCorreaTDGouveaMRet al. A randomized controlled trial comparing a computer-assisted insulin infusion protocol with a strict and a conventional protocol for glucose control in critically ill patients. Journal of Critical Care 2009 24 371–378. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2009.05.005)
IapichinoGAlbiciniMUmbrelloMSacconiFFermoIPavlovichRParoniRBellaniGMistralettiGCugnoMet al. Tight glycemic control does not affect asymmetric-dimethylarginine in septic patients. Intensive Care Medicine 2008 34 1843–1850. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-008-1158-9)
De La Rosa GdelCDonadoJHRestrepoAHQuinteroAMGonzalezLGSaldarriagaNEBedoyaMToroJMVelasquezJBValenciaJCet al. Strict glycaemic control in patients hospitalised in a mixed medical and surgical intensive care unit: a randomised clinical trial. Critical Care 2008 12 R120. (https://doi.org/10.1186/cc7017)
ArabiYMDabbaghOCTamimHMAl-ShimemeriAAMemishZAHaddadSHSyedSJGiridharHRRishuAHAl-DakerMOet al. Intensive versus conventional insulin therapy: a randomized controlled trial in medical and surgical critically ill patients. Critical Care Medicine 2008 36 3190–3197. (https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31818f21aa)
HoedemaekersCWPickkersPNeteaMGvan Deuren M & Van der Hoeven JG. Intensive insulin therapy does not alter the inflammatory response in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN95608630]. Critical Care 2005 9 R790–R797. (https://doi.org/10.1186/cc3911)
YamadaTShojimaNNomaHYamauchiTKadowakiT. Glycemic control, mortality, and hypoglycemia in critically ill patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Intensive Care Medicine 2017 43 1–15. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4523-0)