ObjectiveTo analyze the roles of three scoring systems, i.e. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) Ⅱ, Ranson’s criteria, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), in predicting mortality in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) admitted to intensive care unit (ICU), and explore the independent risk factors for mortality in SAP patients.MethodsThe electronic medical records of SAP patients who admitted to ICU of West China Hospital, Sichuan University between July 2014 and July 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Data of the first APACHE Ⅱ, Ranson’s criteria, SOFA score, duration of mechanical ventilation, the use of vasoactive drugs and renal replacement therapy, and outcomes were obtained. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the value of APACHE Ⅱ score, Ranson’s criteria, and SOFA score in predicting the prognosis of SAP. Logistic regression models were created to analyze the independent effects of factors on mortality.ResultsA total of 290 SAP patients hospitalized in ICU were screened retrospectively, from whom 60 patients were excluded, and 230 patients including 162 males and 68 females aged (51.1±13.7) years were finally included. The ICU mortality of the 230 patients with SAP was 27.8% (64/230), with 166 patients in the survival group and 64 patients in the death group. The areas under ROC curves of APACHE Ⅱ, Ranson’s criteria, APACHE Ⅱ combined with Ranson’s criteria, and SOFA score in predicting mortality in SAP patients admitted to ICU were 0.769, 0.741, 0.802, and 0.625, respectively. The result showed that APACHE Ⅱcombined with Ranson’s criteria was superior to any single scoring system in predicting ICU death of SAP patients. The result of logistic regression analysis showed that APACHE Ⅱ score [odds ratio (OR)=1.841, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.022, 2.651), P=0.002], Ranson’s criteria [OR=1.542, 95%CI (1.152, 2.053), P=0.004], glycemic lability index [OR=1.321, 95%CI (1.021, 1.862), P=0.008], the use of vasoactive drugs [OR=15.572, 95%CI (6.073, 39.899), P<0.001], and renal replacement therapy [OR=4.463, 95%CI (1.901, 10.512), P=0.001] contributed independently to the risk of mortality.ConclusionsAPACHE Ⅱ combined with Ranson’s criteria is better than SOFA score in the prediction of mortality in SAP patients admitted to ICU. APACHE Ⅱ score, Ranson’s criteria, glycemic lability index, the use of vasoactive drugs and renal replacement therapy contribute independently to the risk of ICU mortality in patients with SAP.
Objective To evaluate the feasibility of hyperinsulinemic normoglycemia strategy in critically ill patients. Methods Between January 2020 and October 2021, the critically ill patients with stress hyperglycemia in the Emergency Intensive Care Unit of the Fourth People’s Hospital of Langfang were randomly assigned into a trial group or a control group. The trial group adopted hyperinsulinemic normoglycemia therapy, while the control group adopted conventional glucose control therapy. The mean and variability (standard deviation) of blood glucose, incidences of severe hypoglycemia and abnormal hyperglycemia, as well as the percentage of blood glucose values within the target range were compared between the two groups, to evaluate the feasibility of hyperinsulinemic normoglycemia strategy in critically ill patients from the perspective of safety and effectiveness. The non-normally distributed measurement data were presented as median (lower quartile, upper quartile). Results A total of eighty patients were included, with forty cases in each group. The mean blood glucose level [6.00 (5.74, 6.70) vs. 9.51 (8.74, 10.01) mmol/L, P<0.001], the standard deviation of glucose level [1.58 (1.11, 2.15) vs. 2.20 (1.21, 2.76) mmol/L, P=0.028], and the glycemic lability index [175.52 (100.51, 346.69) vs. 408.51 (205.56, 651.91) mmol2/(L2·h·d), P<0.001] were all smaller in the trial group than those in the control group. The percentage of blood glucose values within the target range was 77.34% in the trial group and 5.33% in the control group, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.001). No patients experienced severe hypoglycemia. There was a significant difference in the incidence of abnormal hyperglycemia between the two groups (5.08% vs. 36.16%, P<0.001). Conclusions Hyperinsulinemic normoglycemia strategy can effectively and safely provide normoglycemia, reduce glycemic variability, and achieve good glycemic control in critically ill patients. Hyperinsulinemic normoglycemia strategy may be a new approach to glycemic control in critically ill patients.