Glucose Control in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Pilot Randomized Study Controlled by Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Comparing the Use of Insulin Glargine with Standard of Care

Background: This pilot study aimed to verify if glycemic control can be achieved in type 2 diabetes patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), using insulin glargine (iGlar) associated with regular insulin (iReg), compared with the standard intensive care unit protocol, which uses continuous insulin intravenous delivery followed by NPH insulin and iReg (St. Care). Patients and Methods: Patients (n = 20) within 24 h of AMI were randomized to iGlar or St. Care. Therapy was guided exclusively by capillary blood glucose (CBG), but glucometric parameters were also analyzed by blinded continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS). Results: Mean glycemia was 141 +/- 39 mg/dL for St. Care and 132 +/- 42 mg/dL for iGlar by CBG or 138 +/- 35 mg/dL for St. Care and 129 +/- 34 mg/dL for iGlar by CGMS. Percentage of time in range (80-180 mg/dL) by CGMS was 73 +/- 18% for iGlar and 77 +/- 11% for St. Care. No severe hypoglycemia (<= 40 mg/dL) was detected by CBG, but CGMS indicated 11 (St. Care) and seven (iGlar) excursions in four subjects from each group, mostly in sulfonylurea users (six of eight patients). Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that equivalent glycemic control without increase in severe hyperglycemia may be achieved using iGlar with background iReg. Data outputs were controlled by both CBG and CGMS measurements in a real-life setting to ensure reliability. Based on CGMS measurements, there were significant numbers of glycemic excursions outside of the target range. However, this was not detected by CBG. In addition, the data indicate that previous use of sulfonylurea may be a potential major risk factor for severe hypoglycemia irrespective of the type of insulin treatment.

Hand-carried ultrasound performed at bedside in cardiology inpatient setting – a comparative study with comprehensive echocardiography

Abstract Background Hand-carried ultrasound (HCU) devices have been demonstrated to improve the diagnosis of cardiac diseases over physical examination, and have the potential to broaden the versatility in ultrasound application. The role of these devices in the assessment of hospitalized patients is not completely established. In this study we sought to perform a direct comparison between bedside evaluation using HCU and comprehensive echocardiography (CE), in cardiology inpatient setting. Methods We studied 44 consecutive patients (mean age 54 ± 18 years, 25 men) who underwent bedside echocardiography using HCU and CE. HCU was performed by a cardiologist with level-2 training in the performance and interpretation of echocardiography, using two-dimensional imaging, color Doppler, and simple calliper measurements. CE was performed by an experienced echocardiographer (level-3 training) and considered as the gold standard. Results There were no significant differences in cardiac chamber dimensions and left ventricular ejection fraction determined by the two techniques. The agreement between HCU and CE for the detection of segmental wall motion abnormalities was 83% (Kappa = 0.58). There was good agreement for detecting significant mitral valve regurgitation (Kappa = 0.85), aortic regurgitation (kappa = 0.89), and tricuspid regurgitation (Kappa = 0.74). A complete evaluation of patients with stenotic and prosthetic dysfunctional valves, as well as pulmonary hypertension, was not possible using HCU due to its technical limitations in determining hemodynamic parameters. Conclusion Bedside evaluation using HCU is helpful for assessing cardiac chamber dimensions, left ventricular global and segmental function, and significant valvular regurgitation. However, it has limitations regarding hemodynamic assessment, an important issue in the cardiology inpatient setting.