Effect of published scientific evidence on glycemic control in adult intensive care units
- PMID: 25775163
- DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0157
Effect of published scientific evidence on glycemic control in adult intensive care units
Abstract
Importance: Little is known about the deadoption of ineffective or harmful clinical practices. A large clinical trial (the Normoglycemia in Intensive Care Evaluation and Survival Using Glucose Algorithm Regulation [NICE-SUGAR] trial) demonstrated that strict blood glucose control (tight glycemic control) in patients admitted to adult intensive care units (ICUs) should be deadopted; however, it is unknown whether deadoption occurred and how it compared with the initial adoption.
Objective: To evaluate glycemic control in critically ill patients before and after the publication of clinical trials that initially suggested that tight glycemic control reduced mortality (Leuven I) but subsequently demonstrated that it increased mortality (NICE-SUGAR).
Design, setting, and participants: Interrupted time-series analysis of 353,464 patients admitted to 113 adult ICUs from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2012, in the United States using data from the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation database.
Main outcomes and measures: The physiologically most extreme blood glucose level on day 1 of ICU admission defined glycemic control as tight control (glucose level, 80-110 mg/dL; to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0555), hypoglycemia (glucose level, <70 mg/dL), and hyperglycemia (glucose level, ≥180 mg/dL). Temporal changes in each marker were examined using mixed-effects segmented linear regression.
Results: Before the publication of Leuven I, 17.2% (95% CI, 16.2%-18.2%) of ICU admissions had tight glycemic control, 3.0% (95% CI, 2.6%-3.5%) had hypoglycemia, and 40.2% (95% CI, 38.8%-41.5%) had hyperglycemia. After the publication of Leuven I, there were significant increases in the relative proportion of admissions with tight glycemic control (1.7% per quarter; 95% CI, 1.2%-2.3%; P<.001) and hypoglycemia (2.5% per quarter; 95% CI, 1.9%-3.2%; P<.001) and decreases in those with hyperglycemia (0.6% per quarter; 95% CI, 0.4%-0.9%; P<.001). Following the publication of NICE-SUGAR, there was no change in the proportion of patients with tight glycemic control or hyperglycemia. There was an immediate decrease in the relative proportion of patients with hypoglycemia (22.4%; 95% CI, 13.2%-30.1%; P<.001) but no subsequent change over time.
Conclusions and relevance: Among patients admitted to adult ICUs in the United States, there was a slow steady adoption of tight glycemic control following publication of a clinical trial that suggested benefit, with little to no deadoption following a subsequent trial that demonstrated harm. There is an urgent need to understand and promote the deadoption of ineffective clinical practices.
Comment in
-
On the undiffusion of established practices.JAMA Intern Med. 2015 May;175(5):809-11. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0167. JAMA Intern Med. 2015. PMID: 25774743 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Glucose control in the intensive care unit.Crit Care Med. 2009 May;37(5):1769-76. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a19ceb. Crit Care Med. 2009. PMID: 19325461 Review.
-
Glycemic control in the critically ill: What have we learned since NICE-SUGAR?Hosp Pract (1995). 2015;43(3):191-7. doi: 10.1080/21548331.2015.1066227. Hosp Pract (1995). 2015. PMID: 26224425 Review.
-
Adoption and implementation of the original strict glycemic control guideline is feasible and safe in adult critically ill patients.Minerva Anestesiol. 2012 Sep;78(9):982-95. Epub 2012 May 25. Minerva Anestesiol. 2012. PMID: 22531562 Clinical Trial.
-
Critique of normoglycemia in intensive care evaluation: survival using glucose algorithm regulation (NICE-SUGAR)--a review of recent literature.Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2010 Mar;13(2):211-4. doi: 10.1097/MCO.0b013e32833571f4. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2010. PMID: 20010098 Review.
-
Glycemic control in the ICU.Chest. 2011 Jul;140(1):212-220. doi: 10.1378/chest.10-1478. Chest. 2011. PMID: 21729892 Review.
Cited by
-
A Systematic Bibliometric Analysis of High-Impact Articles in Critical Care Nephrology.Blood Purif. 2024;53(4):243-267. doi: 10.1159/000535558. Epub 2023 Dec 5. Blood Purif. 2024. PMID: 38052181 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical challenges of glycemic control in the intensive care unit: A narrative review.World J Clin Cases. 2022 Nov 6;10(31):11260-11272. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i31.11260. World J Clin Cases. 2022. PMID: 36387820 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Impact of tight blood glucose control within normal fasting ranges with insulin titration prescribed by the Leuven algorithm in adult critically ill patients: the TGC-fast randomized controlled trial.Trials. 2022 Sep 19;23(1):788. doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06709-8. Trials. 2022. PMID: 36123593 Free PMC article.
-
Evidence for overuse of cardiovascular healthcare services in high-income countries: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ Open. 2022 Apr 7;12(4):e053920. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053920. BMJ Open. 2022. PMID: 35393307 Free PMC article.
-
Patient and family involvement in Choosing Wisely initiatives: a mixed methods study.BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Apr 7;22(1):457. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07861-2. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022. PMID: 35392900 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
