Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40036206›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Glucosafe 2-A new tool for nutritional management and insulin-therapy in the intensive care unit: Randomized controlled study (the Glucosafe 2 protocol).

Aude de Watteville, Ulrike Pielmeier, Mariagrazia Di Marco, Angèle Gayet-Ageron, Nils Siegenthaler, Nicolas Parel, Hannah Wozniak, Steve Primmaz, Jérôme Pugin, Steen Andreassen and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03890432 (GLUCOSAFE 2 - A New Tool for Nutritional Management and Insulin-therapy in the Intensive Care Unit), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03890432 nacompletednot on this map

GLUCOSAFE 2 - A New Tool for Nutritional Management and Insulin-therapy in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU): Randomized Controlled Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorHEIDEGGER CPRan2023 to 2025Enrolled213ConditionsCritical Illness, Energy Supply, Deficiency, Severe, Protein DeficiencyArmsGLUCOSAFE 2, Local protocol control group with routine care, Historical control group with routine care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Aude de WattevilleDivision of Intensive Care, Department of Acute Care Medicine (DMA), Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3078-5227
Ulrike PielmeierRespiratory and Critical Care Group (R-Care), Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5987-8331
Mariagrazia Di MarcoClinical Investigation Unit, Clinical Research Center, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.
Angèle Gayet-AgeronMethodological Support Unit, Clinical Research Center, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6164-9693
Nils SiegenthalerDivision of Intensive Care, Department of Acute Care Medicine (DMA), Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Nicolas ParelDivision of Intensive Care, Department of Acute Care Medicine (DMA), Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-9715-5791
Hannah WozniakDivision of Intensive Care, Department of Acute Care Medicine (DMA), Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Steve PrimmazDivision of Intensive Care, Department of Acute Care Medicine (DMA), Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jérôme PuginDivision of Intensive Care, Department of Acute Care Medicine (DMA), Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Steen AndreassenRespiratory and Critical Care Group (R-Care), Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Claudia Paula HeideggerDivision of Intensive Care, Department of Acute Care Medicine (DMA), Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5107-8217

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) can experience significant fluctuations in blood glucose levels, even if they do not have a history of diabetes. Such variations may arise from multiple causes and are part of the adaptative stress-response to critical illness. To support their nutritional needs, these patients might also need parenteral feeding. Glucose and metabolic fluctuations can lead to serious consequences, including increased infection rates, loss in protein and muscle mass and increased morbi-mortality. This justifies precise and constant monitoring. The management of insulin therapy and nutritional therapy strongly impacts the outcomes of critically ill patients. Glucosafe 2 (GS2) is an innovative medical device designed to address these needs. It offers real-time recommendations to healthcare professionals regarding blood glucose control and nutritional inputs among ICU patients. The goal is to ensure that blood glucose levels remain within the desired range of targeted values, and consequently to minimize the risk of both hypo- and hyperglycemia. METHOD AND

designThis study is an unblinded randomized controlled study with: (1) the intervention group, which uses the GS2 device for nutritional therapy and blood glucose advice until discharge from the ICU or up until 15 days after study enrolment; (2) the control group, which uses standard care according to local ICU protocols. We also collected data of a third historical control group using retrospective data from a sample of ICU patients exposed to the standard of care 2 years before the start of the prospective trial; it aims first to validate the predictive accuracy of the GS2 model before the start of the prospective parts and to interpret the existence of possible bias by assessing the potential cross-contamination effects between intervention and control group, due to the fact that caregivers can take more care of patients in the control group, which will dilute the effect of GS2. We planned to enrol 71 patients per group (total =  213 patients). The primary objective is to compare the time spent within a predetermined range of glycemia (5.0 - 8.5 mmol/l) between the intervention group (GS2) and the control group (standard local ICU protocols). DISCUSSION: This study aims to evaluate the performance and safety of the GS2 medical device software to monitor and guide blood glucose management and nutritional therapy in critically ill patients in comparison to current standard of care. If proven successful, GS2 could be used to optimize nutritional and blood glucose management. The clinical data gathered from this study will also contribute to the Clinical Evaluation Report (CER), a regulatory document that provides an assessment of the clinical safety and performance of a medical device throughout its intended lifecycle. GS2 has the potential to optimize the quality of nutritional and blood glucose management and improve compliance with international guidelines.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03890432, Registered on 26 March 2019.

Indexed as

InsulinBlood GlucoseCritical CareCritical IllnessFemaleHumansHyperglycemiaIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBlood GlucoseInsulin

Identifiers

PMID40036206
PMCPMC11878923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.