A physiological Intensive Control Insulin-Nutrition-Glucose (ICING) model validated in critically ill patients
Introduction
Since the landmark study in surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients by Van Den Berghe et al. [1], which reduced mortality 18–45% using tight glycaemic control (TGC), the attitude towards tolerating hyperglycaemia in critically ill patients has changed. Hyperglycaemia worsens outcomes, increasing the risk of severe infection [2], myocardial infarction [3], and critical illnesses such as polyneuropathy and multiple organ failure [1]. However, repeating these results has been difficult, and thus the role of tight glyceamic control during critical illness and suitable glycaemic ranges have been under scrutiny in recent years [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. However, conclusions are varied with both success [1], [12], [13], [14], failure [15], and, primarily, no clear outcome [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].
Although it is now becoming an unacceptable practice to allow excessive hyperglycaemia and its associated effects [8], [22], [23], [24], moderately elevated blood glucose levels are tolerated or recommended [11] because of the fear of hypoglycaemia and higher nursing effort frequently associated with TGC [8], [10], [25], [26]. Interestingly, some TGC studies that reported a mortality reduction also had reduced and relatively low hypoglycaemic rates [13], [14], whereas almost all other reports had increased and often excessive hypoglycaemia [15], [17]. Finally, model-based and model-derived TGC methods have shown the ability to provide very tight control with little or no hypoglycaemia [13], [27], [28], [29], [30].
Many studies have developed glucose–insulin models with varying degrees of complexity for a wide range of uses, primarily in research studies of insulin sensitivity [27], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. A more comprehensive model review can be found in [28]. For a model to be successful in delivery of TGC, it needs to reflect observable physiology, as well as known biological mechanisms. In addition, it should be uniquely identifiable, and the type and number of parameters to be identified should reflect the clinically available data that will provide validation. Finally, the most important aspect for a model to be used in model-based TGC is its predictive ability, where most studies provide only fitting error as validation [29], [33], [36], [37].
This paper presents a more comprehensive model, ICING (Intensive Control Insulin-Nutrition-Glucose), for the use of glycaemic control particularly in the ICU. The model addresses several incomplete or implicit physiological aspects from prior models by Chase et al. [27] and Lotz et al. [38]. Model limitations are discussed with respect to physiology, pharmacodynamics and TGC practicality. Model identifiability issues are carefully considered for clinical settings. The ICING model is validated using clinical data from critically ill patients and assessed for both its fitting, and more critically for TGC, predictive performance. Finally, issues surrounding TGC and existing glucose–insulin models are extensively reviewed and discussed.
Section snippets
Glucose–insulin physiology model
Two clinically validated glucose–insulin physiology models set the basis of this study. Both models share the same basic structure of the Minimal Model [32]. The model from Chase et al. [27] was developed and validated for glycaemic level management in the ICU. This model captures the fundamental dynamics seen in critically ill patients, yet has a relatively simple mathematical structure enabling rapid identification of patient-specific parameters [39]. This model only requires measurements in
Model validation methods
Validation of the glucose–insulin model presented in Eqs. (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14) is performed using data from 173 patients (42,941 total hours) that were on the SPRINT TGC protocol [13] for 3 or more days, which also had a statistically significant hospital mortality reductions. These patients also had long enough stays to exhibit periods of both dynamic evolution and metabolic stability. The median APACHE II score for this cohort is 19 [IQR 16, 25] and the median age is 64 [IQR 49,
pG and EGPb – Stage 1
The per-patient median fitting and prediction errors over the ranges pG = 0.001–0.1 min−1 and EGPb = 0–3.5 mmol/min are shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 1a and c shows the median of all median hourly % errors for each patient. Fig. 1b and d shows the median range of the 90% confidence interval in hourly % error for each patient. Smaller (tighter) range means tighter distribution with less outliers. In general, lower fitting and prediction errors and error ranges are produced in the lower pG and lower EGPb
Discussion
The new ICING model presented in this study is an integration and improvement of two clinically validated glucose–insulin physiological models [27], [38]. This new model has more explicit physiological relevance without increasing the number of patient-specific parameters to be identified. In particular, the insulin kinetics is expressed with distinctive routes for insulin clearance and transport from plasma, which reflects biological mechanisms. A more realistic model for gastric glucose
Conclusions
A new, more comprehensive glucose–insulin model is presented and validated using data from critically ill patients. The model is capable of accurately capturing long term dynamics and evolution of a critically ill patient’s glucose–insulin response. Insulin sensitivity SI is the only parameter that is identified hourly for each individual. Its identification is guaranteed to be unique given the integral fitting method used in this study. Population constant parameters pG, EGPb and nI have been
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest with respect to this work.
References (100)
- et al.
American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American Diabetes Association consensus statement on inpatient glycemic control
Endocr. Pract.
(2009) Effect of an intensive glucose management protocol on the mortality of critically ill adult patients
Mayo Clin. Proc.
(2004)- et al.
Should minimal blood glucose variability become the gold standard of glycemic control?
J. Diabetes Complications
(2005) - et al.
Model-based glycaemic control in critical care – a review of the state of the possible
Biomed. Signal Process. Control
(2006) - et al.
A circulatory model for the estimation of insulin sensitivity
Control Eng. Pract.
(1997) - et al.
Control-relevant modeling in drug delivery
Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.
(2001) - et al.
Stochastic modelling of insulin sensitivity and adaptive glycemic control for critical care
Comput. Methods Programs Biomed.
(2008) - et al.
Carlo analysis of a new model-based method for insulin sensitivity testing
Comput. Methods Programs Biomed.
(2008) - et al.
Integral-based parameter identification for long-term dynamic verification of a glucose–insulin system model
Comput. Methods Programs Biomed.
(2005) - et al.
Stochastic modelling of insulin sensitivity variability in critical care
Biomed. Signal Process. Control
(2006)
Adaptive bolus-based targeted glucose regulation of hyperglycaemia in critical care
Med. Eng. Phys.
Derivative weighted active insulin control modelling and clinical trials for ICU patients
Med. Eng. Phys.
A glucose–insulin pharmacodynamic surface modeling validation and comparison of metabolic system models
Biomed. Signal Process. Control
Cerebral glucose and oxygen metabolism in patients with fulminant hepatic failure
Liver Transplant.
Glucose absorption and production following oral glucose: comparison of compartmental and arteriovenous-difference methods
Metab. Clin. Exp.
Minimal model of glucose metabolism: modified equations and its application in the study of insulin sensitivity in obese subjects
Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract.
Blood glucose control for type I diabetes mellitus: a robust tracking H∞ problem
Control Eng. Pract.
Alterations in fuel metabolism in critical illness: hyperglycaemia
Best Pract. Res. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
Stress hyperglycaemia
Lancet
Intensive insulin therapy in the critically ill patients
N. Engl. J. Med.
Hyperglycemia and infection: which is the chicken and which is the egg?
JPEN J. Parenter. Enteral Nutr.
Hypocaloric total parenteral nutrition: effectiveness in prevention of hyperglycemia and infectious complications – a randomized clinical trial
Crit. Care Med.
The new Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations on glucose control should be reconsidered
Intensive Care Med.
Intensive insulin therapy in mixed medical/surgical intensive care units: benefit versus harm
Diabetes
NICE-SUGAR: the end of a sweet dream?
Crit. Care
Tight glucose control: should we move from intensive insulin therapy alone to modulation of insulin and nutritional inputs?
Crit. Care
Clinical experience with tight glucose control by intensive insulin therapy
Crit. Care Med.
Is there more to glycaemic control than meets the eye?
Crit. Care
Tight blood glucose control: what is the evidence?
Crit. Care Med.
Intensive insulin therapy in the medical ICU
N. Engl. J. Med.
Implementation and evaluation of the SPRINT protocol for tight glycaemic control in critically ill patients: a clinical practice change
Crit. Care
Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients
N. Engl. J. Med.
Tight glycaemic control: a prospective observational study of a computerised decision-supported intensive insulin therapy protocol
Crit. Care
Intensive insulin therapy and pentastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis
N. Engl. J. Med.
Strict glycaemic control in patients hospitalised in a mixed medical and surgical intensive care unit: a randomised clinical trial
Crit. Care
Benefits and risks of tight glucose control in critically ill adults: a meta-analysis
JAMA
Intensive insulin therapy and mortality in critically ill patients
Crit. Care
Intensive insulin therapy and mortality among critically ill patients: a meta-analysis including NICE-SUGAR study data
CMAJ
Biochemistry and molecular cell biology of diabetic complications
Nature
Variability of blood glucose concentration and short-term mortality in critically ill patients
Anesthesiology
Impact of human factors on clinical protocol performance: a proposed assessment framework and case examples
J. Diabetes Sci. Technol.
Evaluation of nursing work effort and perceptions about blood glucose testing in tight glycemic control
Am. J. Crit. Care
Model-based insulin and nutrition administration for tight glycaemic control in critical care
Curr. Drug Deliv.
Blood glucose control by a model predictive control algorithm with variable sampling rate versus a routine glucose management protocol in cardiac surgery patients: a randomized controlled trial
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
Blood glucose controller for neonatal intensive care: virtual trials development and first clinical trials
J. Diabetes Sci. Technol.
Physiologic evaluation of factors controlling glucose tolerance in man: measurement of insulin sensitivity and beta-cell glucose sensitivity from the response to intravenous glucose
J. Clin. Invest.
A simulation model of glucose regulation in the critically ill
Physiol. Meas.
Closing the loop: the adicol experience
Diabetes Technol. Ther.
A novel, model-based insulin and nutrition delivery controller for glycemic regulation in critically ill patients
Diabetes Technol. Ther.
Transient and steady-state euglycemic clamp validation of a model for glycemic control and insulin sensitivity testing
Diabetes Technol. Ther.
Cited by (175)
A methodology of phenotyping ICU patients from EHR data: High-fidelity, personalized, and interpretable phenotypes estimation
2023, Journal of Biomedical InformaticsClassification-based deep neural network vs mixture density network models for insulin sensitivity prediction problem
2023, Computer Methods and Programs in BiomedicineHow Electronic Medical Record Integration Can Support More Efficient Critical Care Clinical Trials
2023, Critical Care ClinicsInterpretable physiological forecasting in the ICU using constrained data assimilation and electronic health record data
2023, Journal of Biomedical InformaticsClinical trial validation of the STAR-3D glycemic control framework
2023, IFAC-PapersOnLineModel-based Glycemic Control Using Subcutaneous Insulin for Infants in Critical Care
2023, IFAC-PapersOnLine