首页 正文

Observational Study Journal of diabetes science and technology. 2017 Jan;11(1):12-16. doi: 10.1177/1932296816664746 Q23.72024

Comparison of an Electronic Glycemic Management System Versus Provider-Managed Subcutaneous Basal Bolus Insulin Therapy in the Hospital Setting

住院患者电子血糖管理系统与医护人工设定的胰岛素皮下基础餐时治疗方案的对照研究 翻译改进

Joseph Aloi  1, Bruce W Bode  2, Jagdeesh Ullal  3, Paul Chidester  4, Raymie S McFarland  5, Amy E Bedingfield  5, Melanie Mabrey  5, Robby Booth  5, April Mumpower  6, Amisha Wallia  7

作者单位 +展开

作者单位

  • 1 1 Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, USA.
  • 2 2 Atlanta Diabetes Associates, Atlanta, GA, USA.
  • 3 3 Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA.
  • 4 4 Sentara Health, Norfolk, VA, USA.
  • 5 5 Glytec, Waltham, MA, USA.
  • 6 6 Mountain States Health Alliance, Johnson City, TN, USA.
  • 7 7 Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
  • DOI: 10.1177/1932296816664746 PMID: 27555601

    摘要 Ai翻译

    Background: American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines recommend a basal bolus correction insulin regimen as the preferred method of treatment for non-critically ill hospitalized patients. However, achieving ADA glucose targets safely, without hypoglycemia, is challenging. In this study we evaluated the safety and efficacy of basal bolus subcutaneous (SubQ) insulin therapy managed by providers compared to a nurse-directed Electronic Glycemic Management System (eGMS).

    Method: This retrospective crossover study evaluated 993 non-ICU patients treated with subcutaneous basal bolus insulin therapy managed by a provider compared to an eGMS. Analysis compared therapy outcomes before Glucommander (BGM), during Glucommander (DGM), and after Glucommander (AGM) for all patients. The blood glucose (BG) target was set at 140-180 mg/dL for all groups. The safety of each was evaluated by the following: (1) BG averages, (2) hypoglycemic events <40 and <70 mg/dL, and (3) percentage of BG in target.

    Result: Percentage of BG in target was BGM 47%, DGM 62%, and AGM 36%. Patients' BGM BG average was 195 mg/dL, DGM BG average was 169 mg/dL, and AGM BG average was 174 mg/dL. Percentage of hypoglycemic events <70 mg/dL was 2.6% BGM, 1.9% DGM, and 2.8% AGM treatment.

    Conclusion: Patients using eGMS in the DGM group achieved improved glycemic control with lower incidence of hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL and <70 mg/dl) compared to both BGM and AGM management with standard treatment. These results suggest that an eGMS can safely maintain glucose control with less hypoglycemia than basal bolus treatment managed by a provider.

    Keywords: Glucommander; and subcutaneous insulin; computerized insulin algorithm; diabetes; glycemic management; hypoglycemia.

    Keywords:hospital setting

    Copyright © Journal of diabetes science and technology. 中文内容为AI机器翻译,仅供参考!

    相关内容

    期刊名:Journal of diabetes science and technology

    缩写:

    ISSN:1932-2968

    e-ISSN:1932-2968

    IF/分区:3.7/Q2

    文章目录 更多期刊信息

    全文链接
    引文链接
    复制
    已复制!
    推荐内容
    Comparison of an Electronic Glycemic Management System Versus Provider-Managed Subcutaneous Basal Bolus Insulin Therapy in the Hospital Setting