Conventional insulin concentration units (IU/mL or just U/mL) are bioefficacy based, whereas the Système International (SI) units (pmol/L) are mass based. In converting between these two different approaches, there are at least 2 well-accepted conversion factors, where there should be only 1. The correct value is not the most-used or well-accepted using online calculators, some journal styles, laboratory reports, and published articles. In short, an incorrect insulin conversion factor is widely used which underreports insulin concentrations by ~15%, with potentially significant research and clinical implications. This short commentary describes the history of insulin IU definitions and conversion factors, and highlights the widespread nature of conversion factor misuse, to provoke deeper interest and thought regarding numbers we so often use without thinking.

Mechanical ventilation is a life-support therapy for intensive care patients suffering from respiratory failure. To reduce the current rate of ventilator-induced lung injury requires ventilator settings that are patient-, time-, and disease-specific. A common lung protective strategy is to optimise the level of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) through a recruitment manoeuvre to prevent alveolar collapse at the end of expiration and to improve gas exchange through recruitment of additional alveoli. However, this process can subject parts of the lung to excessively high pressures or volumes. This research significantly extends and more robustly validates a previously developed pulmonary mechanics model to predict lung mechanics throughout recruitment manoeuvres. In particular, the process of recruitment is more thoroughly investigated and the impact of the inclusion of expiratory data when estimating peak inspiratory pressure is assessed. Data from the McREM trial and CURE pilot trial were used to test model predictive capability and assumptions. For PEEP changes of up to and including 14 cmH 2 O, the parabolic model was shown to improve peak inspiratory pressure prediction resulting in less than 10% absolute error in the CURE cohort and 16% in the McREM cohort. The parabolic model also better captured expiratory mechanics than the exponential model for both cohorts.

No abstract

Mechanical ventilation (MV) is a core life-support therapy for patients suffering from respiratory failure or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Respiratory failure is a secondary outcome of a range of injuries and diseases, and results in almost half of all intensive care unit (ICU) patients receiving some form of MV. Funding the increasing demand for ICU is a major issue and MV, in particular, can double the cost per day due to significant patient variability, over-sedation, and the large amount of clinician time required for patient management. Reducing cost in this area requires both a decrease in the average duration of MV by improving care, and a reduction in clinical workload.Both could be achieved by safely automating all or part of MV care via model-based dynamic systems modelling and control methods are ideally suited to address these problems. This paper presents common lung models, and provides a vision for a more automated future and explores predictive capacity of some current models. This vision includes the use of model-based methods to gain real-time insight to patient condition, improve safety through the forward prediction of outcomes to changes in MV, and develop virtual patients for in-silico design and testing of clinical protocols. Finally, the use of dynamic systems models and system identification to guide therapy for improved personalised control of oxygenation and MV therapy in the ICU will be considered. Such methods are a major part of the future of medicine, which includes greater personalisation and predictive capacity to both optimise care and reduce costs. This review thus presents the state of the art in how dynamic systems and control methods can be applied to transform this core area of ICU medicine.

Background: Insulin adsorption to clinical materials has been well observed, but not well quantified. Insulin adsorption reduces expected and actual insulin delivery and is unaccounted for in insulin therapy or glycemic control. It may thus contribute to poor control and high glycemic variability. This research quantifies the problem in the context of clinical use. Method: Experimental insulin adsorption data from literature is used to calculate insulin delivery and total insulin adsorption capacities for polyethylene (PE) and polyvinal chloride (PVC) lines at clinically relevant flow rates and concentrations. Results: Insulin adsorption capacity decreased hyperbolically with flow rate for both PE and PVC, where low flow scenarios result in greater insulin adherence to infusion lines. When the infusion flow rate was halved from 1 to 0.5 mL/h, twice as much insulin adsorbed to the line. Insulin loss to adsorption resulted in up to ~50% of intended insulin not delivered over 24 hours in a low flow and low concentration context. Conclusion: Material capacity for insulin adsorption is not constant, but increases with decreasing flow. Different materials have different adsorption capacities. In low flow and low concentration contexts, such as in neonatal or pediatric intensive care, insulin loss to adsorption represents a significant proportion of daily insulin delivery, which needs to be accounted for.

No abstract

Background: Insulin therapy for glycaemic control (GC) in critically ill patients may improve outcomes by reducing hyperglycaemia and glycaemic variability, which are both associated with increased morbidity and mortality. However, initial positive results have proven difficult to repeat or achieve safely. STAR (Stochastic TARgeted) is a model-based glycaemic control protocol using a risk-based dosing approach. STAR uses a 2D stochastic model to predict distributions of likely future changes in modelbased insulin sensitivity (SI) based on its current value, and determines the optimal intervention. Objectives: This study investigates the impact of a new 3D stochastic model on the ability to predict more accurate future SI distributions, which would allow more aggressive insulin dosing and improved glycaemic control. Methods: The new 3D stochastic model is built using both current SI and its prior variation to predict future SI distribution from 68629 hours of clinical data (819 GC episodes). The 5 th-95 th percentile range of predicted SI distribution are calculated and compared with the 2D model. Results: Results show the 2D model is over-conservative compared to the 3D case for more than 77% of the data, predominantly where SI is stable (|%ΔSI| ≤ 25%). These formerly conservative prediction ranges are now ~30% narrower with the 3D model, which safely enables more aggressive insulin dosing for these patient hours. In addition, distributions of predicted SI within the 5 th-95 th percentile range are much closer to the ideal value of 90% for more patients with the 3D model. Conclusions: The new 3D model better characterises patient specific metabolic variability and patient specific response to insulin, allowing more optimal insulin dosing to increase performance and safety.

No abstract