Glycemic variability is complex - is glucose complexity variable?
© BioMed Central Ltd 2012
Published: 21 November 2012
Observational studies show an independent association between increased glycemic variability and higher mortality in critically ill patients. Minimization of glycemic variability is therefore suggested as a new target of glycemic control, which may require very frequent or almost continuous monitoring of glucose levels. Brunner and colleagues show the use of real-time subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring does not decrease glycemic variability. Continuous glucose monitoring, however, may reveal changes in glucose complexity, which may be of interest since both increased and decreased glucose complexity is associated with higher mortality in the critically ill.
In the previous issue of Critical Care Brunner and colleagues report on the results of a post-hoc analysis  of two previously published randomized controlled trials evaluating real-time subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in critically ill patients [2, 3]. Their main findings are that glycemic control guided by real-time CGM does not significantly reduce glycemic variability (GV) and that both increased and decreased glucose complexity is significantly associated with ICU survival and with the presence of diabetes.
There is an independent association between increased GV and higher mortality in ICU patients [4, 5]. GV depends on endogenous factors (for example, severity of illness) but also on exogenous factors (for example, inappropriate glucose measurement intervals and improper insulin adjustments). Minimization of GV is suggested as a new target of glycemic control , which may require very frequent or almost continuous monitoring of glucose levels. However, a secondary analysis of the first two Leuven studies shows that strict glycemic control, which includes frequent monitoring of the blood glucose level, does not decrease GV . The present study shows that strict glycemic control using almost continuous monitoring also does not decrease GV .
Therefore it is very difficult, if not impossible, to decrease GV. Are the nurses in Brunner and colleagues' ICU already performing strict glycemic control so well that GV simply cannot be further decreased? Notably, the standard deviation - one of the measures of GV used by the present analysis - is already very low in the control group compared with values reported in previous studies. Nurses could also poorly or only sporadically respond to the real- time CGM results with alterations in insulin infusion, thereby losing any potential for real-time CGM to further decrease GV. We should also not forget that the present study uses subcutaneous glucose levels and not blood glucose levels for calculation of indicators of GV. Subcutaneous GV may simply not be the same as blood GV. Finally, we must keep in mind that the sample frequency per se may affect the calculation of indicators of GV. Indeed, indicators of GV may not only truly reflect GV, but may also depend on the number of measurements per time unit used for its calculation . Brunner and colleagues actually confirm this dependency in their analysis of the impact of the method of glucose determination on indicators of GV .
As we speak, several CGM systems are being developed and clinically tested in critically ill patients. These systems all have the potential to improve performance and safety of insulin titration in the ICU. They may also improve our insights into insulin resistance and help us to better understand the impact of GV on outcome. The present study not only shows that GV does not improve with the use of CGM per se, but also suggests that we need to develop better measures of GV, independent of the sample frequency. Finally, CGM systems allow us to determine and follow changes in glucose complexity. This allows one to inspect whether glucose complexity increases (from decreased complexity) or decreases (from increased complexity) in individual patients, and to determine whether these changes follow changes in insulin resistance over time. If this indeed is the case, then CGM could even help us in decisions to start or stop strict glycemic control in individual patients, thereby preventing side effects of insulin infusion.
continuous glucose monitoring
- Brunner R, Adelsmayr G, Herkner H, Madl C, Holzinger U: Glycemic variability and glucose complexity in critically ill patients: a retrospective analysis of continuous glucose monitoring data. Crit Care 2012, 16: R175. 10.1186/cc11657PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
- Holzinger U, Warszawska J, Kitzberger R, Herkner H, Metnitz PG, Madl C: Impact of shock requiring norepinephrine on the accuracy and reliability of subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring. Intensive Care Med 2009, 35: 1383-1389. 10.1007/s00134-009-1471-yView ArticlePubMed
- Holzinger U, Warszawska J, Kitzberger R, Wewalka M, Miehsler W, Herkner H, Madl C: Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in critically ill patients: a prospective randomized trial. Diabetes Care 2010, 33: 467-472. 10.2337/dc09-1352PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
- Krinsley JS: Glycemic variability: a strong independent predictor of mortality in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2008, 36: 3008-3013. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31818b38d2View ArticlePubMed
- Hermanides J, Vriesendorp TM, Bosman RJ, Zandstra DF, Hoekstra JB, Devries JH: Glucose variability is associated with intensive care unit mortality. Crit Care Med 2010, 38: 838-842. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181cc4be9View ArticlePubMed
- Vincent JL: Blood glucose control in 2010: 110 to 150 mg/dl and minimal variability. Crit Care Med 2010, 38: 993-995. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181d16b2eView ArticlePubMed
- Meyfroidt G, Keenan DM, Wang X, Wouters PJ, Veldhuis JD, Van den Berghe G: Dynamic characteristics of blood glucose time series during the course of critical illness: effects of intensive insulin therapy and relative association with mortality. Crit Care Med 2010, 38: 1021-1029. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181cf710eView ArticlePubMed
- Eslami S, Taherzadeh Z, Schultz MJ, Abu-Hanna A: Glucose variability measures and their effect on mortality: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med 2011, 37: 583-593. 10.1007/s00134-010-2129-5PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
- Goldberger AL, Amaral LA, Hausdorff JM, Ivanov P, Peng CK, Stanley HE: Fractal dynamics in physiology: alterations with disease and aging. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002,99(Suppl 1):2466-2472.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
- Goldstein B, Fiser DH, Kelly MM, Mickelsen D, Ruttimann U, Pollack MM: Decomplexification in critical illness and injury: relationship between heart rate variability, severity of illness, and outcome. Crit Care Med 1998, 26: 352-357. 10.1097/00003246-199802000-00040View ArticlePubMed
- Churruca J, Vigil L, Luna E, Ruiz-Galiana J, Varela M: The route to diabetes: loss of complexity in the glycemic profile from health through the metabolic syndrome to type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 2008, 1: 3-11.PubMed CentralPubMed
- Ogata H, Tokuyama K, Nagasaka S, Ando A, Kusaka I, Sato N, Goto A, Ishibashi S, Kiyono K, Struzik ZR, Yamamoto Y: Long-range negative correlation of glucose dynamics in humans and its breakdown in diabetes mellitus. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 2006, 291: R1638-R1643. 10.1152/ajpregu.00241.2006View ArticlePubMed
- Ogata H, Tokuyama K, Nagasaka S, Tsuchita T, Kusaka I, Ishibashi S, Suzuki H, Yamada N, Hamano K, Kiyono K, Struzik ZR, Yamamoto Y: The lack of long-range negative correlations in glucose dynamics is associated with worse glucose control in patients with diabetes mellitus. Metabolism 2012, 61: 1041-1050. 10.1016/j.metabol.2011.12.007View ArticlePubMed
- Yamamoto N, Kubo Y, Ishizawa K, Kim G, Moriya T, Yamanouchi T, Otsuka K: Detrended fluctuation analysis is considered to be useful as a new indicator for short-term glucose complexity. Diabetes Technol Ther 2010, 12: 775-783. 10.1089/dia.2010.0059View ArticlePubMed
- Lundelin K, Vigil L, Bua S, Gomez-Mestre I, Honrubia T, Varela M: Differences in complexity of glycemic profile in survivors and nonsurvivors in an intensive care unit: a pilot study. Crit Care Med 2010, 38: 849-854. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181ce49cfView ArticlePubMed