1 Hit in 0.051 sec

Fully closed-loop insulin delivery in inpatients receiving nutritional support: a two-centre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Charlotte K Boughton, Lia Bally, Franco Martignoni, Sara Hartnell, David Herzig, Andreas Vogt, Maria M Wertli, Malgorzata Wilinska, Mark Evans, Anthony Coll, Christoph Stettler, Roman Hovorka (+2 others)
Glucose management is challenging in patients who require nutritional support in hospital. We aimed to assess whether fully closed-loop insulin delivery would improve glycaemic control compared with conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy in inpatients receiving enteral or parenteral nutrition or both. Methods: We did a two-centre (UK and Switzerland), open-label, randomised controlled trial in adult inpatients receiving enteral or parenteral nutrition (or both) who required subcutaneous
more » ... d subcutaneous insulin therapy. Patients recruited from non-critical care surgical and medical wards were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated minimisation schedule (stratified by type of nutritional support [parenteral nutrition on or off] and pre-study total daily insulin dose [<50 or ≥50 units]) to receive fully closed-loop insulin delivery with faster-acting insulin aspart (closed-loop group) or conventional subcutaneous insulin therapy (control group) given in accordance with local clinical practice. Continuous glucose monitoring in the control group was masked to patients, ward staff, and investigators. Patients were followed up for a maximum of 15 days or until hospital discharge. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time that sensor glucose concentration was in target range (5·6–10·0 mmol/L), assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with, number NCT01774565. Findings Between Feb 8, 2018, and Sept 21, 2018, 90 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 43 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the closed-loop group (n=21) or the control group (n=22). The proportion of time that sensor glucose was in the target range was 68·4% [SD 15·5] in the closed-loop group and 36·4% [26·6] in the control group (difference 32·0 percentage points [95% CI 18·5–45·5; p<0·0001]). One serious adverse event occurred in each group(one cardiac arrest in the control group and one episode of acute respiratory failure in the closed-loop group), both of which were unrel [...]
doi:10.17863/cam.36873 fatcat:oeqgxfdxofbt3p5eczgwwkzice