Skip Navigation LinksHome > January/February 2014 - Volume 35 - Issue 1 > Clinical Impact of Sample Interference on Intensive Insulin...
Journal of Burn Care & Research:
doi: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e31829b3700
Original Articles: 2013 ABA Papers

Clinical Impact of Sample Interference on Intensive Insulin Therapy in Severely Burned Patients: A Pilot Study

Tran, Nam K. PhD, MS*; Godwin, Zachary R. BS*; Bockhold, Jennifer C.*; Passerini, Anthony G. PhD; Cheng, Julian BS; Ingemason, Morgan BS

Erratum

Erratum

In the article that appeared on pages 72—79 of the January 2014 issue, the penultimate sentence in the Prospective Observational Study section of the Results should have read as follows:

Figure 3 illustrates GMS1 and GMS2 results measured every 2 hours and compared with the laboratory analyzer. GMS2 results were significantly higher than laboratory results (mean bias, 29.2 [27.2]; n = 15 paired measurements; P < .001).

Journal of Burn Care & Research. 35(6):533, November/December 2014.

Collapse Box

Abstract

Severely burned patients benefit from intensive insulin therapy (IIT) for tight glycemic control (TGC). The authors evaluated the clinical impact of automatic correction of hematocrit and ascorbic acid interference for bedside glucose monitoring performance in critically ill burn patients. The performance of two point-of-care glucose monitoring systems (GMSs): 1) GMS1, an autocorrecting device, and 2) GMS2, a noncorrecting device were compared. Sixty remnant arterial blood samples were collected in a prospective observational study to evaluate hematocrit and ascorbic acid effects on GMS1 vs GMS2 accuracy paired against a plasma glucose reference. Next, we enrolled 12 patients in a pilot randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive IIT targeting a TGC interval of 111 to 151 mg/dl and guided by either GMS1 or GMS2. GMS bias, mean insulin rate, and glycemic variability were calculated. In the prospective study, GMS1 results were similar to plasma glucose results (mean bias, −0.75 [4.0] mg/dl; n = 60; P = .214). GMS2 results significantly differed from paired plasma glucose results (mean bias, −5.66 [18.7] mg/dl; n = 60; P = .048). Ascorbic acid therapy elicited significant GMS2 performance bias (29.2 [27.2]; P < .001). Randomized controlled trial results reported lower mean bias (P < .001), glycemic variability (P < .05), mean insulin rate (P < .001), and frequency of hypoglycemia (P < .001) in the GMS1 group than in the GMS2 group. Anemia and high-dose ascorbic acid therapy negatively impact GMS accuracy and TGC in burn patients. Automatic correction of confounding factors improves glycemic control. Further studies are warranted to determine outcomes associated with accurate glucose monitoring during IIT.

Copyright © 2013 by the American Burn Association

Login

Article Tools

Share