Pilot study of the efficacy and safety of different insulin infusion dilutions for blood glucose control in ICU patients


Abstract

Background: Hyperglycemia due to insulin resistance is common in critically ill patients, including those without pre‑existing diabetes, and is associated with increased mortality. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of two insulin infusion diluents for blood glucose control in ICU patients.
Methods: In this single‑blinded randomized controlled trial conducted at seven ICU sites in Hospital Pakar Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) between 1 December 2023 and 30 September 2024, 74 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive insulin diluted with either Gelafundin or normal saline (standard care). Blood glucose levels were recorded at baseline (0 h), 2 h, and 6 h after initiation of insulin infusion. Repeated‑measures ANOVA was used for analysis, with statistical significance set at P < 0.05.
Results: Mean blood glucose levels were higher in the normal saline (NS) group than in the Gelafundin group at baseline [14.50 mmol/L (12.09–14.33) vs 12.64 mmol/L (10.76–14.52), P = 0.014], at 2 h [13.86 mmol/L (10.86–16.86) vs 11.27 mmol/L (8.77–13.77), P = 0.014], and at 6 h [11.28 mmol/L (8.08–14.48) vs 8.27 mmol/L (6.87–9.67), P < 0.001]. A significant group‑by‑time interaction in blood glucose levels was observed [F (1,72) = 25.13, P < 0.001]. Both groups showed significant reductions in blood glucose from baseline to 6 h (NS: −3.21 mmol/L, 95% CI −5.17 to −1.25, P = 0.001; Gelafundin: −4.37 mmol/L, 95% CI −5.24 to −3.50, P < 0.001). Twenty‑eight‑day mortality was similar between groups (NS: 16.2%; Gelafundin: 18.9%; P = 0.760). Conclusion: Insulin diluted with Gelafundin achieved greater short‑term reductions in blood glucose levels than insulin diluted with normal saline in critically ill patients, without differences in 28‑day mortality between groups.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].