Monitorización de la glucemia en el paciente crítico adulto: tipo de muestra y método de análisis. Revisión sistemática y metanálisis / Blood glucose monitoring in critically ill adult patients: Type of sample and method of analysis. Systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroducciónLa guía clínica para el manejo de la sepsis recomienda usar muestras de sangre arterial para el control glucémico. Un estudio multicéntrico en 86 unidades de cuidados intensivos españolas reveló que el 85,4% de estas utilizaban punción capilar.ObjetivoAnalizar la fiabilidad de la glucemia comparando diferentes muestras sanguíneas (arterial, venosa, capilar) e instrumentos (glucómetros, gasómetros, laboratorio central). Secundariamente, estimar el efecto de variables confusoras y el rendimiento de los instrumentos de medición determinados por las diferentes normas de calidad.MetodologíaRevisión sistemática y metanálisis con búsqueda en las bases de datos PubMed, CINAHL y Embase en septiembre-2021 y septiembre-2022, sin límites temporales ni idiomáticos. Fuentes de literatura gris: DART-Europe, OpenGrey y Google Académico. Resultados resumidos mediante síntesis cualitativa (descripción de resultados, características de los estudios) y cuantitativa (metanálisis para evaluar la diferencia de medias estandarizadas). Calidad metodológica de artículos evaluada con Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Protocolo: https://osf.io/ DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/T8KYP.ResultadosSe incluyeron un total de 32 artículos y 5.451 pacientes. No se obtuvieron discrepancias entre muestras arteriales con glucómetro vs. laboratorio (sesgo [IC95%]: 0,01 [−0,12 a 0,14] mg/dL). En cambio, muestras arteriales con gasómetro sí sobreestimaron de forma significativa (sesgo [IC95%]: 0,12 [0,01 a 0,24] mg/dL). La misma tendencia presentan capilares con glucómetro, aunque no de forma significativa (sesgo [IC95%]: 0,07 [−0,02 a 0,15] mg/dL). Hay discrepancia entre los estudios sobre el efecto del hematocrito y el equilibrio ácido-base. El mayor consenso se da en la poca concordancia del glucómetro con muestras capilares vs. laboratorio en presencia de shock y soporte vasopresor, situación de fallo renal o durante el tratamiento con vitamina C.Conclusiones... (AU)

IntroductionThe clinical guideline for the management of sepsis recommends using arterial blood samples for glycaemic control. A multicentre study in 86 Spanish intensive care units revealed that 85.4% of these used capillary puncture.ObjectiveTo analyse the reliability of glycaemia by comparing different blood samples (arterial, venous, capillary) and instruments (glucometers, gasometers, central laboratory). Secondarily, to estimate the effect of confounding variables and the performance of measuring instruments as determined by different quality standards.MethodologySystematic review and meta-analysis with search in PubMed, CINAHL and Embase databases in September-2021 and September-2022, with no time or language limits. Grey literature sources: DART-Europe, OpenGrey and Google Scholar. Results summarised by qualitative (description of results, study characteristics) and quantitative (meta-analysis to assess standardised mean difference) synthesis. Methodological quality of articles assessed with Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Protocol: https://osf.io/ DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/T8KYP.ResultsA total of 32 articles and 5451 patients were included. No discrepancies were obtained between arterial glucometer vs. laboratory samples (bias [95%CI]: 0.01 [−0.12 to 0.14] mg/dL). In contrast, arterial samples with a gasometer did significantly overestimate (bias [95%CI]: 0.12 [0.01 to 0.24] mg/dL). The same trend is seen in capillaries with a glucometer, although not significantly (bias [95%CI]: 0.07 [−0.02 to 0.15] mg/dL). There is discrepancy between studies on the effect of haematocrit and acid-base balance. The greatest consensus is on the poor agreement of glucometer with capillary vs. laboratory samples in the presence of shock and vasopressor support, renal failure or during vitamin C treatment.Conclusions... (AU)

Monitorización de la glucemia en el paciente crítico adulto: tipo de muestra y método de análisis. Revisión sistemática y metanálisis / Blood glucose monitoring in critically ill adult patients: Type of sample and method of analysis. Systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroducciónLa guía clínica para el manejo de la sepsis recomienda usar muestras de sangre arterial para el control glucémico. Un estudio multicéntrico en 86 unidades de cuidados intensivos españolas reveló que el 85,4% de estas utilizaban punción capilar.ObjetivoAnalizar la fiabilidad de la glucemia comparando diferentes muestras sanguíneas (arterial, venosa, capilar) e instrumentos (glucómetros, gasómetros, laboratorio central). Secundariamente, estimar el efecto de variables confusoras y el rendimiento de los instrumentos de medición determinados por las diferentes normas de calidad.MetodologíaRevisión sistemática y metanálisis con búsqueda en las bases de datos PubMed, CINAHL y Embase en septiembre-2021 y septiembre-2022, sin límites temporales ni idiomáticos. Fuentes de literatura gris: DART-Europe, OpenGrey y Google Académico. Resultados resumidos mediante síntesis cualitativa (descripción de resultados, características de los estudios) y cuantitativa (metanálisis para evaluar la diferencia de medias estandarizadas). Calidad metodológica de artículos evaluada con Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Protocolo: https://osf.io/ DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/T8KYP.ResultadosSe incluyeron un total de 32 artículos y 5.451 pacientes. No se obtuvieron discrepancias entre muestras arteriales con glucómetro vs. laboratorio (sesgo [IC95%]: 0,01 [−0,12 a 0,14] mg/dL). En cambio, muestras arteriales con gasómetro sí sobreestimaron de forma significativa (sesgo [IC95%]: 0,12 [0,01 a 0,24] mg/dL). La misma tendencia presentan capilares con glucómetro, aunque no de forma significativa (sesgo [IC95%]: 0,07 [−0,02 a 0,15] mg/dL). Hay discrepancia entre los estudios sobre el efecto del hematocrito y el equilibrio ácido-base. El mayor consenso se da en la poca concordancia del glucómetro con muestras capilares vs. laboratorio en presencia de shock y soporte vasopresor, situación de fallo renal o durante el tratamiento con vitamina C.Conclusiones... (AU)

IntroductionThe clinical guideline for the management of sepsis recommends using arterial blood samples for glycaemic control. A multicentre study in 86 Spanish intensive care units revealed that 85.4% of these used capillary puncture.ObjectiveTo analyse the reliability of glycaemia by comparing different blood samples (arterial, venous, capillary) and instruments (glucometers, gasometers, central laboratory). Secondarily, to estimate the effect of confounding variables and the performance of measuring instruments as determined by different quality standards.MethodologySystematic review and meta-analysis with search in PubMed, CINAHL and Embase databases in September-2021 and September-2022, with no time or language limits. Grey literature sources: DART-Europe, OpenGrey and Google Scholar. Results summarised by qualitative (description of results, study characteristics) and quantitative (meta-analysis to assess standardised mean difference) synthesis. Methodological quality of articles assessed with Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Protocol: https://osf.io/ DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/T8KYP.ResultsA total of 32 articles and 5451 patients were included. No discrepancies were obtained between arterial glucometer vs. laboratory samples (bias [95%CI]: 0.01 [−0.12 to 0.14] mg/dL). In contrast, arterial samples with a gasometer did significantly overestimate (bias [95%CI]: 0.12 [0.01 to 0.24] mg/dL). The same trend is seen in capillaries with a glucometer, although not significantly (bias [95%CI]: 0.07 [−0.02 to 0.15] mg/dL). There is discrepancy between studies on the effect of haematocrit and acid-base balance. The greatest consensus is on the poor agreement of glucometer with capillary vs. laboratory samples in the presence of shock and vasopressor support, renal failure or during vitamin C treatment.Conclusions... (AU)

Blood glucose monitoring in critically ill adult patients: type of sample and method of analysis. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical guideline for the management of sepsis, recommends using arterial blood samples for glycaemic control. A multicentre study in 86 Spanish intensive care units (ICU) revealed that 85.4% of ICUs used capillary puncture. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the reliability of glycaemia by comparing different blood samples (arterial, venous, capillary) and instruments (glucometers, gasometers, central laboratory). Secondarily, to estimate the effect of confounding variables and the performance of measuring instruments as determined by different quality standards. METHODOLOGY: Systematic review and meta-analysis with search in PubMed, CINAHL and Embase databases in September-2021 and September-2022, with no time or language limits. Grey literature sources: DART-Europe, OpenGrey and Google Scholar. Results summarised by qualitative (description of results, study characteristics) and quantitative (meta-analysis to assess standardised mean difference) synthesis. Methodological quality of articles assessed with Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). PROTOCOL: https://osf.io/ DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/T8KYP. RESULTS: A total of 32 articles and 5451 patients were included. No discrepancies were obtained between arterial glucometer vs laboratory samples [bias (95%CI): 0.01 (-0.12 to 0.14) mg/dL]. In contrast, arterial samples with a gasometer did significantly overestimate [bias (95%CI): 0.12 (0.01 to 0.24) mg/dL]. The same trend is seen in capillaries with a glucometer, although not significantly [bias (95%CI): 0.07 (--0.02 to 0.15) mg/dL]. There is discrepancy between studies on the effect of haematocrit and acid-base balance. The greatest consensus is on the poor agreement of glucometer with capillary vs laboratory samples in the presence of shock and vasopressor support, renal failure or during vitamin C treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence to date recommends the use of arterial blood with a blood glucose meter for better reliability of glycaemic analysis and less effect of possible confounding variables, frequently present in the critically ill adult patient.

Diseño de un modelo de ronda de seguridad para unidades de cuidados intensivos / Design of a safety round model for intensive care units

Introducción: Las rondas de seguridad (RS) son una herramienta operativa que permite conocer la adherencia a las buenas prácticas, ayuda a identificar riesgos e incidentes en seguridad del paciente (SP), permitiendo implementar acciones de mejora. El objetivo de este trabajo fue el diseño de un procedimiento para realizar RS en una unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI). Métodos: Elaboración de un listado de verificación para el desarrollo de RS en una UCI mediante técnica de grupo nominal, con la participación de directivos, mandos intermedios y profesionales de diferentes disciplinas y categorías. En primer lugar, un grupo de expertos consensuó, atendiendo a las recomendaciones en buenas prácticas en SP, la definición de ítems, su codificación, los criterios de cumplimiento y el impacto de su incumplimiento. Posteriormente, determinó su viabilidad mediante un estudio transversal a través del pilotaje de 2 RS para ajustar los ítems en condiciones de práctica clínica real. Resultados: Se ha obtenido un modelo de RS específico para UCI mediante un listado de verificación. El grupo de expertos elaboró un primer listado compuesto por 39 ítems de 6 dimensiones esenciales y definió el modo de realización. El tiempo medio de realización de las 2 RS fue de 85minutos, incluyendo el briefing y debriefing posterior. Tras el pilotaje de validación se redujo las dimensiones a 5, se suprimió 3 ítems, se trasladó 2 ítems a otra dimensión y se modificó 3 ítems relativos a infecciones nosocomiales y consentimiento informado. Además, se redefinieron las fuentes de datos, los criterios de cumplimiento y su peso relativo. El listado definitivo fue considerado útil y relevante para mejorar la práctica. Conclusiones: Mediante una metodología de consenso se ha construido un listado de verificación para ser usado en las RS de una UCI. Este modelo puede servir de base para su empleo en servicios asistenciales de similares características.(AU)

Introduction: Safety Rounds (SR) are an operational tool that allow knowing adherence to good practices, help identify risks and incidents in patient safety (PS), allowing improvement actions to be implemented. The objective of this work was the design of a procedure to perform SR in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Methods: Preparation of a checklist for the development of SR in the ICU through the nominal group technique, with the participation of managers, middle managers and professionals from different disciplines and categories. In the first place, a group of experts agreed, based on the recommendations on good practices in PS, the definition of items, their coding, the criteria for compliance and the impact of non-compliance. Subsequently, its viability was determined through a cross-sectional study through the piloting of two SRs to adjust the items in real clinical practice conditions. Results: A specific SR model for ICUs has been obtained through a checklist. The group of experts prepared a first list made up of 39 items of 6 essential dimensions and defined the method of implementation. Mean time to complete the two SRs was 85minutes, including the briefing and subsequent debriefing. After the validation pilot, the dimensions were reduced to 5, 3 items were deleted, 2 items were transferred to another dimension and 3 items related to nosocomial infections and informed consent were modified. In addition, the data sources, the compliance criteria and their relative weight were redefined. The final list was considered useful and relevant to improve practice. Conclusions: Through a consensus methodology, a checklist has been built to be used in the RS of an ICU. This model can serve as a basis for its use in healthcare services with similar characteristics.(AU)

Effectiveness of closed blood sampling systems in intensive care patients: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Anemia associated with blood extraction for diagnostic purposes is a highly prevalent entity in intensive care units (ICU) for adults. The evidence recommends its prevention through different strategies, among which we can find the use of closed blood sampling systems (CBSS). Different experimental studies support the use of these devices. OBJECTIVE: To identify knowledge gaps regarding the effectiveness of CBSS in ICU patients. METHODS: Scoping review with search in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library and Joanna Briggs Institute databases, between September-2021 and September-2022. No time, language, or other limits were applied to ensure the recovery of all relevant studies. Gray literature sources: DART-Europe, OpenGrey and Google Scholar. Two researchers independently reviewed titles and abstracts and assessed full texts against the inclusion criteria. The following data was extracted for each study: design and sample, inclusion and exclusion criteria, variables, type of CBSS, results and conclusions. RESULTS: 18 articles were included in the final review, 11 clinical trials (RCTs) published between 1992 and 2014. Three systematic reviews were found, but they only analyzed the effect of CBSS in reducing blood loss, hemoglobin stabilization, and the need for transfusion. Five of the RCTs analyzed the risk of infection, one catheter complications, and two alterations in blood pressure readings. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CBSS is recommended to reduce blood loss in ICUs. However, there are discrepancies about their ability to prevent anemia and/or the need for blood transfusion. Its use does not increase catheter-related infection rates or alter the measurement of mean arterial pressure.

Design of a safety round model for intensive care units.

INTRODUCTION: Safety Rounds (SR) are an operational tool that allow knowing adherence to good practices, help identify risks and incidents in patient safety (PS), allowing improvement actions to be implemented. The objective of this work was the design of a procedure to perform SR in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). METHODS: Preparation of a checklist for the development of SR in the ICU through the nominal group technique, with the participation of managers, middle managers and professionals from different disciplines and categories. In the first place, a group of experts agreed, based on the recommendations on good practices in PS, the definition of items, their coding, the criteria for compliance and the impact of non-compliance. Subsequently, its viability was determined through a cross-sectional study through the piloting of two SRs to adjust the items in real clinical practice conditions. RESULTS: A specific SR model for ICUs has been obtained through a checklist. The group of experts prepared a first list made up of 39 items of 6 essential dimensions and defined the method of implementation. Mean time to complete the two SRs was 85 min, including the briefing and subsequent debriefing. After the validation pilot, the dimensions were reduced to 5, 3 items were deleted, 2 items were transferred to another dimension and 3 items related to nosocomial infections and informed consent were modified. In addition, the data sources, the compliance criteria and their relative weight were redefined. The final list was considered useful and relevant to improve practice. CONCLUSIONS: Through a consensus methodology, a checklist has been built to be used in the RS of an ICU. This model can serve as a basis for its use in healthcare services with similar characteristics.