Trial reportCritical care (London, England)2009
Intensive insulin treatment improves forearm blood flow in critically ill patients: a randomized parallel design clinical trial.
Trial report in Critical care (London, England), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diabetes and sepsis: preclinical findings and clinical relevance.Diabetes care · 2011Review
- Increased blood flow by insulin infusion targeting normoglycemia in patients with severe sepsis: friend or foe?Critical care (London, England) · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntensive insulin treatment of critically ill patients was seen as a promising method of treatment, though recent studies showed that reducing the blood glucose level below 6 mmol/l had a detrimental outcome. The mechanisms of the effects of insulin in the critically ill are not completely understood. The purpose of the study was to test the hypothesis that intensive insulin treatment may influence forearm blood flow independently of global hemodynamic indicators.
methodsThe study encompassed 29 patients of both sexes who were admitted to the intensive care unit due to sepsis and required artificial ventilation as the result of acute respiratory failure. 14 patients were randomly selected for intensive insulin treatment (Group 1; blood glucose concentration 4.4-6.1 mmol/l), and 15 were selected for conventional insulin treatment (Group 2; blood glucose level 7.0 mmol/l-11.0 mmol/l). At the start of the study (t0, beginning up to 48 hours after admittance and the commencement of artificial ventilation), at 2 hours (t1), 24 hours (t2), and 72 hours (t3) flow in the forearm was measured for 60 minutes using the strain-gauge plethysmography method. Student's t-test of independent samples was used for comparisons between the two groups, and Mann-Whitney's U-test where appropriate. Linear regression analysis and the Pearson correlation coefficient were used to determine the levels of correlation.
resultsThe difference in 60-minute forearm flow at the start of the study (t0) was not statistically significant between groups, while at t2 and t3 significantly higher values were recorded in Group 1 (t2; Group 1: 420.6 +/- 188.8 ml/100 ml tissue; Group 2: 266.1 +/- 122.2 ml/100 ml tissue (95% CI 30.9-278.0, P = 0.02); t3; Group 1: 369.9 +/- 150.3 ml/100 ml tissue; Group 2: 272.6 +/- 85.7 ml/100 ml tissue (95% CI 5.4-190.0, P = 0.04). At t1 a trend towards significantly higher values in Group 1 was noted (P = 0.05). The level of forearm flow was related to the amount of insulin infusion (r = 0.40).
conclusionsCompared to standard treatment, intensive insulin treatment of critically ill patients increases forearm flow. Flow increase was weakly related to the insulin dose, though not to blood glucose concentration.
trial registrationTRIAL NUMBER: ISRCTN39026810.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.