Comparison of Intensive Versus Conventional Glycemic Control Targets: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the 2024 Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Glycemic Control for Critically Ill Adults
Authors' conclusion
INT BG targets demonstrated mild to moderate improvements in several important morbidity secondary outcomes, including LOS, infections, and CIP, but were associated with a 3.6-fold higher risk of severe hypoglycemia. No differences were seen in ICU or hospital mortality.
Study context
- Population
- Critically ill adults on insulin infusions
- Participants
- 32,215 adults · 45 randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
- Comparison
- Intensive vs conventional blood glucose targets
- Outcome
- Hospital and ICU mortality
Methodological detailssubgroup analyses
- Subgroup analyses
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
- No differences between intensive (INT) and conventional (CONV) targets for hospital or ICU mortality
Further pooled results
ICU length of stay (LOS), infections, critical illness polyneuropathy (CIP)
- INT associated with lower ICU LOS, infections and CIP
- Most studies with significant differences had serious inconsistencies or risk of bias
Subgroups: neurologic ICU, mixed ICU, cardiac surgery (subgroup)
- INT: favorable neurologic outcomes in neurologic ICU, lower ICU LOS in mixed ICU, lower ICU mortality in cardiac surgery
Safety
- INT 3.6-fold higher risk of severe hypoglycemia
Original publication
Comparison of Intensive Versus Conventional Glycemic Control Targets: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the 2024 Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Glycemic Control for Critically Ill Adults. Crit Care Med. Published 9 June 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →