Impact of glycemic control on the incidence of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: a comparison of two strategies using the RIFLE criteria

OBJECTIVE: To compare the renal outcome in patients submitted to two different regimens of glycemic control, using the RIFLE criteria to define acute kidney injury. INTRODUCTION: The impact of intensive insulin therapy on renal function outcome is controversial. The lack of a criterion for AKI definition may play a role on that. METHODS: Included as the subjects were 228 randomly selected, critically ill patients engaged in intensive insulin therapyor in a carbohydrate-restrictive strategy. Renal outcome was evaluated through the comparison of the last RIFLE score obtained during the ICU stay and the RIFLE score at admission; the outcome was classified as favorable, stable or unfavorable. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable regarding demographic data. AKI developed in 52 percent of the patients and was associated with a higher mortality (39.4 percent) compared with those who did not have AKI (8.2 percent) (p<0.001). Renal function outcome was comparable between the two groups (p=0.37). We observed a significant correlation between blood glucose levels and the incidence of acute kidney injury (p=0.007). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, only APACHE III scores higher than 60 were identified as an independent risk factor for unfavorable renal outcome. APACHE III scores>60, acute kidney injury and hypoglycemia were risk factors for mortality. CONCLUSION: Intensive insulin therapy and a carbohydrate-restrictive strategy were comparable regarding the incidence of acute kidney injury evaluated using RIFLE criteria.

Insuficiência adrenal relativa no choque séptico: comparação da resposta ao tratamento com hidrocortisona em pacientes diagnosticados através de dosagem única do cortisol plasmático versus teste da corticotropina / Relative adrenal insufficiency in septic shock: comparison of the response to hydrocortisone in patients diagnosed through random cortisol measurement versus corticotropin test

JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: A incidência de insuficiência adrenal relativa (IAR) no paciente com choque séptico é elevada e tem impacto significativo na sobrevida. O objetivo deste estudo foi determinar se a dosagem única do cortisol < 25 mg/dL é tão eficiente quanto o teste da corticotropina com 1 mg para o diagnóstico de IAR em pacientes com choque séptico, avaliando a resposta hemodinâmica à administração de hidrocortisona. MÉTODO: Os pacientes foram aleatorizados para dosagem única do cortisol ou teste da corticotropina com 1 mg. Após a coleta de sangue para dosagem do cortisol, os pacientes passaram a receber 100 mg de hidrocortisona, por via venosa a cada 8 horas, durante 36 horas. IAR foi definida por uma dosagem única do cortisol < 25 mg/dL ou um D do cortisol < 9 mg/dL, após o teste da corticotropina. RESULTADOS: Sessenta pacientes (G1 = 30; G2 = 30) foram incluídos na análise e mostraram-se comparáveis com relação aos dados demográficos, nosologias e gravidade. O tempo de uso de noradrenalina entre os pacientes do grupo 1 com critério diagnóstico para IAR não diferiu daquele dos pacientes com cortisol > 25 mg/dL. No grupo 2, os pacientes com D cortisol < 9 mg/dL tiveram tempo de infusão de noradrenalina menor (3 dias) comparado aos pacientes com D cortisol > 9 mg/dL (6 dias). CONCLUSÕES: O teste da corticotropina com 1 mg foi mais eficiente que a dosagem única do cortisol plasmático < 25 mg/dL, para o diagnóstico da insuficiência adrenal relativa no paciente com choque séptico.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The incidence of relative adrenal insufficiency (RAI) in patients with septic shock is high and has a significant impact on survival. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a random cortisol concentration < 25 mg/dL was as good as a low dose (1 mg) corticotrophin stimulation test in the diagnosis of RAI in patients with septic shock as assessed by the hemodynamic response to hydrocortisone. METHODS: Patients were randomized to a single cortisol determination or to a low dose corticotrophin stimulation test. After blood collection to cortisol determinations, hydrocortisone (100 mg every 8 hrs) was administered for all patients in the first 36 hours. RAI was defined by a random cortisol concentration < 25 mg/dL or a D cortisol concentration < 9 mg/dL in the corticotrophin test. RESULTS: Sixty patients (G1 = 30; G2 = 30) were included in the analysis and were comparable regarding to demographic data, nosologies and disease severity. The time to norepinephrin withdrawal in group 1 patients with RAI diagnostic criteria was not different from the patients with cortisol > 25 mg/dL. In group 2 patients with D cortisol < 9 mg/dL had a shorter time of norepinephrin infusion (3 days) compared to patients with D cortisol > 9 (6 days). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that 1 mg corticotrophin test is better than a random cortisol determination < 25 mg/dL to the diagnosis of relative adrenal insufficiency in septic shock patients.

Intensive insulin therapy versus conventional glycemic control in patients with acute neurological injury: a prospective controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare intensive insulin therapy to conventional glycemic control in patients with acute neurological injury evaluating neurological outcome and morbimortality. METHOD: Patients with two glycemias above 150 mg/dL 12 hours after admission were randomized to receive intensive insulin therapy (G1) or conventional treatment (G2). We evaluated a subgroup of patients with acute brain injury from July, 2004 to June, 2006. RESULTS: G1 patients (n=31) received 70.5 (45.1-87.5) units of insulin/day while G2 patients (n=19) received 2 (0.6-14.1) units/day (p<0.0001). The median glycemia was comparable in both groups (p=0.16). Hypoglycemia occurred in 2 patients (6.4 percent) in G1 and in 1 patient (5.8 percent) in G2 (p=1.0). Mortality in G1 was of 25.8 percent and of 35.2 percent in G2 (relative reduction of 27 percent). Neurological outcome was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: A less strict intensive insulin therapy can reduce hypoglycemia and still maintain its benefits.

OBJETIVO: Comparar insulinoterapia intensiva com controle convencional da glicemia em pacientes com injuria cerebral aguda avaliando evolução neurológica e morbimortalidade. MÉTODO: Pacientes com duas glicemias acima de 150 mg/dL nas primeiras 12 horas após admissão foram randomizados para insulinoterapia intensiva (Grupo 1) ou tratamento convencional (Grupo 2). Avaliamos um subgrupo de pacientes com injuria cerebral aguda admitidos de julho/2004 a junho/2006. RESULTADOS: O Grupo 1 (n=31) recebeu 70,5 (45,1-87,5) unidades de insulina/dia enquanto o Grupo 2 (n=19) recebeu 2 (0,6-14,1) unidades/dia (p<0,0001). A glicemia mediana foi comparável nos dois grupos (p=0,16). Hipoglicemia ocorreu em 2 pacientes (6,4 por cento) no Grupo 1 e em 1 paciente (5,8 por cento) no Grupo 2. A mortalidade no Grupo 1 foi 25,8 por cento contra 35,2 por cento no Grupo 2 (redução relativa de 27 por cento). A evolução neurológica foi semelhante nos dois grupos. CONCLUSÃO: Insulinoterapia intensiva com controle mais flexível da glicemia reduz a incidência de hipoglicemia mantendo os benefícios do tratamento.