Background Neonatal hypoglycemia is common and can cause neurologic impairment, but evidence supporting thresholds for intervention is limited. Methods We performed a prospective cohort study involving 528 neonates with a gestational age of at least 35 weeks who were considered to be at risk for hypoglycemia; all were treated to maintain a blood glucose concentration of at least 47 mg per deciliter (2.6 mmol per liter). We intermittently measured blood glucose for up to 7 days. We continuously monitored interstitial glucose concentrations, which were masked to clinical staff. Assessment at 2 years included Bayley Scales of Infant Development III and tests of executive and visual function. Results Of 614 children, 528 were eligible, and 404 (77% of eligible children) were assessed; 216 children (53%) had neonatal hypoglycemia (blood glucose concentration, <47 mg per deciliter). Hypoglycemia, when treated to maintain a blood glucose concentration of at least 47 mg per deciliter, was not associated with an increased risk of the primary outcomes of neurosensory impairment (risk ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.20; P = 0.67) and processing difficulty, defined as an executive-function score or motion coherence threshold that was more than 1.5 SD from the mean (risk ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.51; P = 0.74). Risks were not increased among children with unrecognized hypoglycemia (a low interstitial glucose concentration only). The lowest blood glucose concentration, number of hypoglycemic episodes and events, and negative interstitial increment (area above the interstitial glucose concentration curve and below 47 mg per deciliter) also did not predict the outcome. Conclusions In this cohort, neonatal hypoglycemia was not associated with an adverse neurologic outcome when treatment was provided to maintain a blood glucose concentration of at least 47 mg per deciliter. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others.)

BackgroundNeonatal hypoglycemia is common and a preventable cause of brain damage.Dextrose gel is used to reverse hypoglycemia in diabetics. However, there is little evidence for its use in babies. MethodWe enrolled 514 babies 35 to 42 weeks' gestation, < 48 hours, and at risk of hypoglycemia, to a randomized, double-blind placebo controlled trial to determine whether 40% dextrose gel massaged into the buccal mucosa is more effective than feeding alone in reversing hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemic babies were randomized to 40% dextrose gel 200 mg/kg (n= 118) or placebo (n= 119) and encouraged to feed.Primary outcome was treatment failure (blood glucose concentration <2·6 mmol/L) after two treatment attempts. FindingsDextrose gel reduced the frequency of treatment failure (16/118 (14%) in dextrose vs. 29/119 (24%) in placebo group, RR 0·57; 95% CI 0·33 to 0·98; p=0·04). Babies receiving dextrose gel were less likely to be admitted to intensive care for hypoglycemia, (16/118 (14%) vs. 30/119 (25%); RR 0.54 (0.31, 0.93); P=0.03), to receive formula feeds (median 7 vs. 10 feeds; median difference 2; 95% CI 0 to 4; p=0·04) and to be formula fed at two weeks (5/118 (4%) vs.15/119 (13%), RR 0·34; 95% CI 0·13 to 0·90; p=0·03). 3 InterpretationDextrose gel should be considered for first-line treatment for management of hypoglycemia in late preterm and term babies in the first 48 hours after birth.

IntroductionTight glycemic control (TGC) has shown benefits but has been difficult to achieve consistently. STAR (Stochastic TARgeted) is a flexible, model-based TGC approach directly accounting for intra- and inter- patient variability with a stochastically derived maximum 5% risk of blood glucose (BG) < 4.0 mmol/L. This research assesses the safety, efficacy, and clinical burden of a STAR TGC controller modulating both insulin and nutrition inputs in pilot trials.MethodsSeven patients covering 660 hours. Insulin and nutrition interventions are given 1-3 hourly as chosen by the nurse to allow them to manage workload. Interventions are calculated by using clinically validated computer models of human metabolism and its variability in critical illness to maximize the overlap of the model-predicted (5-95th percentile) range of BG outcomes with the 4.0-6.5 mmol/L band while ensuring a maximum 5% risk of BG < 4.0 mmol/L. Carbohydrate intake (all sources) was selected to maximize intake up to 100% of SCCM/ACCP goal (25 kg/kcal/h). Maximum insulin doses and dose changes were limited for safety. Measurements were made with glucometers. Results are compared to those for the SPRINT study, which reduced mortality 25-40% for length of stay ≥3 days. Written informed consent was obtained for all patients, and approval was granted by the NZ Upper South A Regional Ethics Committee.ResultsA total of 402 measurements were taken over 660 hours (~14/day), because nurses showed a preference for 2-hourly measurements. Median [interquartile range, (IQR)] cohort BG was 5.9 mmol/L [5.2-6.8]. Overall, 63.2%, 75.9%, and 89.8% of measurements were in the 4.0-6.5, 4.0-7.0, and 4.0-8.0 mmol/L bands. There were no hypoglycemic events (BG < 2.2 mmol/L), and the minimum BG was 3.5 mmol/L with 4.5% < 4.4 mmol/L. Per patient, the median [IQR] hours of TGC was 92 h [29-113] using 53 [19-62] measurements (median, ~13/day). Median [IQR] results: BG, 5.9 mmol/L [5.8-6.3]; carbohydrate nutrition, 6.8 g/h [5.5-8.7] (~70% goal feed median); insulin, 2.5 U/h [0.1-5.1]. All patients achieved BG < 6.1 mmol/L. These results match or exceed SPRINT and clinical workload is reduced more than 20%.ConclusionsSTAR TGC modulating insulin and nutrition inputs provided very tight control with minimal variability by managing intra- and inter- patient variability. Performance and safety exceed that of SPRINT, which reduced mortality and cost in the Christchurch ICU. The use of glucometers did not appear to impact the quality of TGC. Finally, clinical workload was self-managed and reduced 20% compared with SPRINT.

Results show that OL are higher for patients with cTIB ≥ 0.3-0.7 than patients with cTIB < 0.3-0.7, irrespective of how cTIB was achieved. A cTIB threshold of 0.5 was found to be a minimum acceptable threshold based on outcome. If cTIB is used in similar BG studies in the future, cTIB ≥ 0.7 may be a good target for glycemic control to ensure outcomes and to separate patients with good BG control from patients with poor control.