You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 300 No. 23, December 17, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Related letters
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Nutritional and Metabolic Disorders
 •Critical Care/ Intensive Care Medicine
 •Nutritional and Metabolic Disorders, Other
 •Adult Critical Care
 •Statistics and Research Methods
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Tight Glucose Control in Critically Ill Adults

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: The meta-analysis of studies of tight glucose control in critically ill patients by Dr Soylemez Wiener and colleagues1 did not confirm the initial mortality benefit identified in the first trial in surgical ICU patients conducted by van den Berghe et al.2 The principal reason posited for this discrepancy was the "atypical clinical practices" of early glucose infusion and parenteral nutrition,1 although early adequate feeding of approximately 22 kcal and 1 g of protein per kilogram was accomplished.2 Adequate feeding was almost certainly not provided in other randomized trials of tight glucose control, including a second trial by van den Berghe et al3 in medical ICU patients in whom no mortality benefit was found.

The most rigorous meta-analysis4 of adequate nutritional support in critically ill patients using an intention-to-treat analysis showed a significant increase of infectious complications but a significant reduction in mortality with total parenteral nutrition compared . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Bruce Ryan Bistrian, MD, PhD
bbistria@bidmc.harvard.edu
Department of Medicine
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Boston, Massachusetts



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Benefits and Risks of Tight Glucose Control in Critically Ill Adults: A Meta-analysis
Renda Soylemez Wiener, Daniel C. Wiener, and Robin J. Larson
JAMA. 2008;300(8):933-944.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED LETTERS

Tight Glucose Control in Critically Ill Adults
Greet Hermans, Miet Schetz, and Greet van den Berghe
JAMA. 2008;300(23):2725.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Tight Glucose Control in Critically Ill Adults
Mitchell G. Scott, David E. Bruns, and David B. Sacks
JAMA. 2008;300(23):2725-2726.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Tight Glucose Control in Critically Ill Adults
Jean-Charles Preiser and Philippe Devos
JAMA. 2008;300(23):2726.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Tight Glucose Control in Critically Ill Adults—Reply
Renda Soylemez Wiener, Daniel C. Wiener, and Robin J. Larson
JAMA. 2008;300(23):2726-2727.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Tight Glucose Control in Critically Ill Adults—Reply
Simon Finfer and Anthony Delaney
JAMA. 2008;300(23):2727-2728.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2008 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.