Association between insulin administration method and six-month neurological outcome in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who underwent targeted temperature management
Dong Hun Lee
Byung Kook Lee
Yong Soo Cho
Yong Hun Jung
Hyoung Youn Lee
Kyung Woon Jeung
Chun Song Youn
Soo Hyun Kim
Competing Interests:The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
¶ Membership of Korean Hypothermia Network is provided in the Acknowledgments.
* E-mail:bbukkuk@hanmail.net
Roles
Received 2022 Jun 23; Accepted 2022 Dec 8; Collection date 2022.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
We investigated the association of insulin administration method with the achievement of mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL and neurological outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survivors who had hyperglycemia after the return of spontaneous circulation. From a multicenter prospective registry, we extracted the data of adult OHCA survivors who underwent targeted temperature management (TTM) between 2015 and 2018. Blood glucose levels every 4 h after initiating TTM were obtained for 72 h. We divided insulin administration methods into three categories: subcutaneous (SQI), intravenous bolus (IBI), and continuous intravenous (CII). We calculated the mean glucose and standard deviation (SD) of glucose. The primary outcome was the achievement of mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL. The secondary outcomes were the 6-month neurological outcome based on the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scale (good, CPC 1–2; poor, CPC 3–5), mean glucose, and SD of glucose. Of the 549 patients, 296 (53.9%) achieved mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL, and 438 (79.8%) had poor neurological outcomes, 134 (24.4%), 132 (24.0), and 283 (51.5%) were in the SQI, IBI, and CII groups, respectively. The SQI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.848; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.493–1.461) and IBI (aOR, 0.673; 95% CIs, 0.415–1.091) groups were not associated with mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL and the SQI (aOR, 0.660; 95% CIs, 0.335–1.301) and IBI (aOR, 1.757; 95% CIs, 0.867–3.560) groups were not associated with poor neurological outcomes compared to the CII group. The CII (168 mg/dL [147–202]) group had the lowest mean glucose than the SQI (181 mg/dL [156–218]) and IBI (184 mg/dL [162–216]) groups. The CII (45.0[33.9–63.5]) group had a lower SD of glucose than the IBI (50.8 [39.1–72.0]) group. The insulin administration method was not associated with achieving mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL and 6-month neurological outcomes.
Introduction
Cardiac arrest leads to various metabolic derangements due to ischemic-reperfusion injury even after the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Hyperglycemia is one of the common abnormalities following cardiac arrest [1]. A well-known scientific observation is the association between hyperglycemia and poor neurological outcomes or increased mortality in cardiac arrest survivors [2–5]. Therefore, the target glucose level is generally recommended as < 180 mg/dL, this parameter is applied to critically ill patients [6], as in comatose cardiac arrest survivors, as protection against potential neurological injury, even if the ultimate target glycemic range has not been elucidated [7,8].
In a historic comparison study, although the target glucose range of the continuous intravenous insulin (CII) method changed from conventional range (150 to 200 mg/dL) to intensive range (100 to 150 mg/dL) in patients with coronary artery bypass graft, the CII method has been proven to reduce mortality compared to the subcutaneous insulin (SQI) method [9]. Therefore, intravenous insulin infusion is the preferred route for administering insulin in critically ill patients [10]. A randomized controlled trial has revealed that conventional glucose control (< 180 mg/dL) was associated with lower mortality than intensive glucose control (81 to 108 mg/dL) in critically ill patients [6]. However, a randomized controlled trial that compared strict and conventional glucose control in comatose cardiac arrest survivors failed to find the optimal target glucose range [11]. Furthermore, although insulin is administrated subcutaneously or intravenously (bolus or continuous), the clinical difference according to the insulin administration in cardiac arrest survivors has not been investigated.
To address this question, we hypothesized that the insulin administration method would be related to blood glucose levels and, thus, to neurological outcomes. To examine this hypothesis, we used a multicenter registry of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) who underwent targeted temperature management (TTM) with blood glucose recordings for 72 h after the initiation of TTM.
Materials and methods
Study design and population
The Korean Hypothermia Network Prospective Registry (KORHN-PRO) has been gathering data on comatose adult (age ≥ 18 years) OHCA survivors who underwent TTM at 20 participating hospitals since October 2015 (KORHN-PRO;NCT02827422) [12]. The KORHN-PRO collects data on blood glucose after ROSC and every 4 h from the initiation of TTM to 72 h. We performed a retrospective analysis of the KORHN-PRO data between October 2015 and December 2018. The ethics and institutional review board of all participating hospitals approved KORHN-PRO. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients or patients’ proxies per national requirements and the principle of the Declaration of Helsinki [13]. Independent researchers assessed the neurological outcomes at 1 and 6 months after ROSC and recorded these as the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scale [14].
We included adult OHCA survivors who had hyperglycemia (> 180 mg/dL) within 24 h following ROSC. We excluded patients who had: insufficient data on glucose (glucose measurement less than six times during the 72 h after the initiation of TTM); no insulin for glucose control; no data on insulin treatment; no hyperglycemia within 24 h following ROSC; no data on 6-month neurological outcomes; died within 24 h after ROSC.
TTM and glucose control
After ROSC, the target temperature range of 33–36°C was achieved as soon as possible. Sedatives were administered, and if needed, neuromuscular blockade to control shivering. Patients were rewarmed after completing the maintenance phase at 0.2–0.5°C/h. Sedatives and neuromuscular blockade were discontinued as the patient achieved normothermia. Blood glucose level was monitored and controlled to avoid hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia throughout post-cardiac arrest care following ROSC. Hyperglycemia was managed with SQI, intravenous bolus insulin (IBI), or CII according to each hospital protocol and the attending physician (S1 File). Moderate (< 70 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia (< 40 mg/dL) was managed with glucose-containing solution.
Data collection
We extracted the following data from the KORHN-PRO: age; sex; body mass index (BMI); pre-existing illness; a witness of collapse; bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); first monitored rhythm (shockable or non-shockable); etiology of cardiac arrest (cardiac or non-cardiac); time from collapse to ROSC; epinephrine dose; serum lactate level after ROSC, PaO2 and PaCO2 after ROSC; glucose levels after ROSC and every 4 h during the 72 h from the initiation of TTM; sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) within the first day following ROSC [15]; target temperature (33–34°C or 35–36°C); insulin administration method (SQI, IBI, or CII); CPC 6-months after ROSC.
The primary outcome was the achievement of mean blood glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL. The secondary outcomes were neurological outcomes assessed using CPC 6 months after ROSC, maximum glucose, mean glucose, a standard deviation (SD) of glucose, minimum glucose, moderate hypoglycemia, and severe hypoglycemia. The neurological outcomes were defined as good (CPC 1 or 2) or poor (CPC 3–5).
Statistical analysis
We report continuous variables as median with interquartile ranges because all continuous variables had a non-normal distribution and categorical variables as the frequency with percentile. We used chi-square or Fisher’s exact test to compare categorical variables, as appropriate. We used the Mann–WhitneyU test to compare continuous variables between two groups and the Kruskal–Wallis test to compare continuous variables among three groups. We performed posthoc analysis using a pair-wise Mann–WhitneyU test with Bonferroni correction. We conducted logistic regression analyses to investigate the association between the insulin administration method and the achievement of mean blood glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL and the association between insulin administration methods and neurological outcomes. We selected the variables with ap-value < 0.05 in comparisons among insulin administration methods as covariates for the association between insulin administration methods and mean blood glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL. Additionally, we selected the covariates after performing the multivariable logistic regression analysis with the variables with a p-value < 0.2 in comparisons between groups of mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL. We also selected the covariates for the association between insulin administration methods and neurological outcomes through the multivariable logistic regression analysis with variables with ap-value < 0.2 in comparisons between neurological outcome groups. We selected the variables with ap-value < 0.05 in the multivariate logistic regression analyses as final covariates. We performed the Hosmer–Lemeshow test to test the goodness-of-fit of the logistic model. We also performed the multivariate logistic regression analysis to examine the association between glucose variables and neurological outcomes after adjusting covariates. We report the logistic regression analysis results as an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% confidence interval (CIs). We used IBM SPSS Statistics 26.0 for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). A two-sidedp-value < 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance.
Results
Study population
Of 1,373 OHCA survivors who were recorded in the registry, 289 patients had no hyperglycemia during 24 h after ROSC; 251 patients were either not administered insulin or lacked insulin data; 152 patients had insufficient blood glucose measurement (< 6 times) data during the 72 h after ROSC; 97 patients died or transferred within 24 h; 35 patients had no available data on 6-month CPC. Finally, 549 patients were included in the study (Fig 1).
Fig 1. Flow chart describing the patient selection.
OHCA, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; TTM, targeted temperature management; ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation.
Characteristics according to the insulin administration method
Table 1 shows the baseline and clinical characteristics stratified by the insulin administration method. The SQI, IBI, and CII groups comprised 134 (24.4%), 132 (24.0%), and 283 (51.5%) patients, respectively. Pre-existing diabetes mellitus and renal disease, a witness of collapse, and etiology of cardiac arrest were different among the three groups. Time from collapse to ROSC and PaCO2 were different among the three groups. However, subgroup analyses found no difference in time from collapse to ROSC and PaCO2 between paired two groups. Pre-TTM shock and target temperature were different among the three groups.
Table 1. Baseline and clinical characteristics stratified by the insulin administration method.
| Variables | SQI (n = 134) | IBI (n = 132) | CII (n = 283) | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 60.0 (51.8–71.0) | 60.0 (49.0–70.0) | 61.0 (51.0–71.0) | 0.769 |
| Male sex | 82 (61.2) | 97 (73.5) | 190 (67.1) | 0.102 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 23.0 (20.8–25.4) | 23.8 (20.2–25.9) | 23.5 (21.1–26.0) | 0.652 |
| Pre-existing illness | ||||
| CAD | 15 (11.2) | 21 (15.9) | 33 (11.7) | 0.410 |
| Heart failure | 7 (5.2) | 9 (6.8) | 9 (3.2) | 0.232 |
| Hypertension | 56 (41.8) | 53 (40.2) | 133 (47.0) | 0.352 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 38 (28.4) | 59 (44.7) | 98 (34.6) | 0.019 |
| Stroke or TIA | 14 (10.4) | 12 (9.1) | 15 (5.3) | 0.126 |
| Pulmonary disease | 7 (5.2) | 13 (9.8) | 21 (7.4) | 0.357 |
| Renal disease | 7 (5.2) | 19 (14.4) | 19 (6.7) | 0.010 |
| Liver cirrhosis | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.8) | 4 (1.4) | 0.357 |
| Witnessed | 67 (50.0) | 91 (68.9) | 204 (72.1) | <0.001 |
| Bystander CPR | 78 (58.2) | 86 (65.2) | 174 (62.4) | 0.508 |
| Shockable rhythm | 42 (31.3) | 36 (27.3) | 85 (30.0) | 0.755 |
| Cardiac etiology | 72 (53.7) | 83 (62.9) | 190 (67.1) | 0.030 |
| Time to ROSC, min | 37.0 (21.0–49.0)a | 30.0 (19.0–43.0)a | 32.0 (18.0–45.0)a | 0.039 |
| Epinephrine dose, mg | 2 (1–5), 130 | 2 (1–4), 129 | 2 (1–4), 266 | 0.968 |
| Serum lactate, mg/dL | 10.3 (7.0–12.9) | 10.7 (7.0–14.0) | 9.9 (6.3–13.0) | 0.283 |
| Glucose affter ROSC, mg/dL | 292 (213–356) | 288 (228–372) | 285 (231–355) | 0.855 |
| PaO2, mmHg | 102.1 (70.0–193.0) | 107.0 (74.4–180.8) | 109.3 (73.0–196.0) | 0.407 |
| PaCO2, mmHg | 45.1 (33.9–61.8)a | 53.0 (39.0–75.9)a | 50.0 (37.4–72.7)a | 0.040 |
| Pre-TTM shock | 94 (70.1) | 89 (67.4) | 148 (52.3) | <0.001 |
| SOFA | 12 (10–13) | 12 (10–13) | 11 (9–13) | 0.141 |
| Target temperature | ||||
| 33°C–34°C | 63 (47.0) | 114 (86.4) | 270 (95.4) | <0.001 |
| 35°C–36°C | 71 (53.0) | 18 (13.6) | 13 (4.6) |
SQI, subcutaneous insulin; IBI, intravenous bolus insulin; CII, continuous intravenous insulin; BMI, body mass index; CAD, coronary artery disease; TIA, transient ischemic attack; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation; TTM, targeted temperature management; SOFA, sequential organ failure assessment
aPost-hoc analysis by pair-wise Mann–Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction showed no difference.
Table 2 shows the glucose variables according to the insulin administration method. Achievement of mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL, mean glucose, SD of glucose, and minimum glucose differed among the three groups. The CII group (168 mg/dL [147–202]) had lower mean glucose levels than the SQI (181 mg/dL [156–218]) and IBI (184 mg/dL [162–216]) groups. The IBI group (50.8 [39.1–72.0]) had higher SDs of glucose than the SQI (47.0 [33.2–61.1]) and CII (45.0 [33.9–63.5]) groups. The CII group (98 mg/dL [82–112]) had lower minimum glucose levels than the SQI group (106 mg/dL [91–122]). However, the IBI group had similar minimum glucose levels as the SQI and CII groups. Severe hypoglycemia was different among the three groups.
Table 2. Glucose characteristics during 72 h after cardiac arrest according to the insulin administration method.
| Characteristics | SQI (n = 134) | IBI (n = 132) | CII (n = 283) | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MG ≤ 180 mg/dL | 65 (48.5) | 61 (46.2) | 170 (60.1) | 0.011 |
| Mean, mg/dL | 181 (156–218)a | 184 (162–216)a | 168 (147–202)b | 0.001 |
| Maximum, mg/dL | 338 (269–415) | 357 (285–417) | 325 (268–389) | 0.080 |
| SD | 47.0 (33.2–61.1)a | 50.8 (39.1–72.0)b | 45.0 (33.9–63.5)a | 0.012 |
| Minimum, mg/dL | 106 (91–122)a | 101 (82–114)a,b | 98 (82–112)b | 0.008 |
| Moderate hypoglycemia | 11 (8.2) | 13 (9.8) | 34 (12.0) | 0.475 |
| Severe hypoglycemia | 0 (0.0) | 8 (6.1) | 9 (3.2) | 0.017 |
SQI, subcutaneous insulin; IBI, intravenous bolus insulin; CII, continuous intravenous insulin; MG, mean glucose; SD, standard deviation
a,bPost-hoc analysis by pair-wise Mann–Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction. The same letter means no difference.
Association between insulin administration method and mean glucose under 180 mg/dL
Table 3 shows the demographic and clinical characteristics stratified by mean glucose of 180 mg/dL. A total of 296 (53.9%) achieved mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL. Patients who had mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL had lower BMI (23.0 kg/m2 [20.7–25.4]) vs. 23.9 kg/m2 [21.3–26.1]) than those had mean glucose > 180 mg/dL. Patients with mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL had fewer pre-existing illnesses (hypertension and diabetes mellitus). Patient who had mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL had fewer witnesses of collapse (208/296 vs. 154/253), lower epinephrine dose (2 mg [0–4] vs. 2 mg [1–5]), lower serum lactate (9.3 mg/dL [6.0–12.6] vs. 11.3 mg/dL [8.0–14.0]), higher PaO2 (117.5 mmHg [76.0–221.0] vs. 100.0 mmHg [71.0–160.0]), lower pre-TTM shock (155/296 vs. 176/253), lower SOFA scores (11 [9–13] vs. 12 [10–14]), and a higher proportion of target temperature of 33°C–34°C (255/296 vs. 192/253).
Table 3. Demographic and clinical characteristics stratified by mean glucose of 180 mg/dL.
| Variables | Total (n = 549) | MG ≤ 180 mg/dL (n = 296) | MG > 180 mg/dL (n = 253) | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 61.0 (50.0–71.0) | 59.0 (49.0–71.0) | 62.0 (53.5–71.0) | 0.093 |
| Male sex | 369 (67.2) | 199 (67.2) | 170 (67.2) | 1.000 |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 23.5 (20.9–25.8) | 23.0 (20.7–25.4) | 23.9 (21.3–26.1) | 0.025 |
| Pre-existing illness | ||||
| Coronary artery disease | 69 (12.6) | 31 (10.5) | 38 (15.0) | 0.141 |
| Heart failure | 25 (4.6) | 12 (4.1) | 13 (5.1) | 0.688 |
| Hypertension | 242 (44.1) | 112 (37.8) | 130 (51.4) | 0.002 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 195 (35.5) | 63 (21.3) | 132 (52.2) | <0.001 |
| Stroke or TIA | 41 (7.5) | 18 (6.1) | 23 (9.1) | 0.240 |
| Pulmonary disease | 41 (7.5) | 28 (9.5) | 13 (5.1) | 0.079 |
| Renal disease | 45 (8.2) | 25 (8.4) | 20 (7.9) | 0.941 |
| Liver cirrhosis | 5 (0.9) | 2 (0.7) | 3 (1.2) | 0.860 |
| Witnessed | 362 (65.9) | 208 (70.3) | 154 (60.9) | 0.026 |
| Bystander CPR | 338 (61.6) | 185 (62.5) | 153 (60.5) | 0.690 |
| Shockable rhythm | 163 (29.7) | 98 (33.1) | 65 (25.7) | 0.072 |
| Cardiac etiology | 345 (62.8) | 184 (62.2) | 161 (63.6) | 0.789 |
| Time to ROSC, min | 32.0 (19.0–45.0) | 32.0 (19.0–45.0) | 33.0 (19.0–46.0) | 0.365 |
| Epinephrine dose, mg | 2 (1–4) | 2 (0–4) | 2 (1–5) | 0.017 |
| Serum lactate, mg/dL | 10.2 (6.7–13.3) | 9.3 (6.0–12.6) | 11.3 (8.0–14.0) | <0.001 |
| Glucose after ROSC, mg/dL | 287 (228–360) | 263 (215–323) | 323 (242–409) | <0.001 |
| PaO2, mmHg | 106.8 (73.0–191.0) | 117.5 (76.0–221.0) | 100.0 (71.0–160.0) | 0.001 |
| PaCO2, mmHg | 49.6 (37.0–71.4) | 48.3 (37.1–69.5) | 54.0 (38.8–75.0) | 0.343 |
| Pre-TTM shock | 331 (60.3) | 155 (52.4) | 176 (69.6) | <0.001 |
| SOFA | 12 (9–13) | 11 (9–13) | 12 (10–14) | <0.001 |
| Target temperature | 0.003 | |||
| 33°C–34°C | 447 (81.4) | 255 (86.1) | 192 (75.9) | |
| 35°C–36°C | 102 (18.6) | 41 (13.9) | 61 (24.1) |
MG, mean glucose; TIA, transient ischemic attack; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation; TTM, targeted temperature management; SOFA, sequential organ failure assessment
Multivariable logistic regression analysis found hypertension (aOR, 0.609; 95% CIs, 0.399–0.930), diabetes mellitus (aOR, 0.273; 95% CIs, 0.175–0.425), witnessed (aOR, 1.992; 95% CIs, 1.289–3.078), PaO2 (aOR, 1.002; 95% CIs, 1.000–1.004), pre-TTM shock (aOR, 0.541; 95% CIs, 0.355–0.826), target temperature of 35–36°C (aOR, 0.500; 95% CIs, 0.297–0.842), glucose after ROSC (aOR, 0.995; 95% CIs, 0.993–0.997) as covariates. The insulin administration method was not associated with the achievement of mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL after adjusting covariates (Table 4).
Table 4. The association between insulin administration method and mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL.
| Variables | Adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) | p |
|---|---|---|
| Hypertension | 0.686 (0.458–1.027) | 0.067 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 0.274 (0.180–0.417) | < 0.001 |
| Renal disease | 1.559 (0.742–3.277) | 0.241 |
| Witnessed | 1.752 (1.156–2.656) | 0.008 |
| Cardiac etiology | 0.891 (0.575–1.381) | 0.607 |
| Time to ROSC | 0.999 (0.989–1.009) | 0.820 |
| Glucose after ROSC, mg/dL | 0.995 (0.993–0.997) | <0.001 |
| PaO2, mmHg | 1.003 (1.001–1.004) | |
| PaCO2, mmHg | 1.003 (0.996–1.011) | 0.387 |
| Pre-TTM shock | 0.580 (0.389–0.864) | 0.007 |
| Target temperature | ||
| 33°C–34°C | Reference | |
| 35°C–36°C | 1.819 (1.094–3.025) | 0.021 |
| Insulin administration method | ||
| CII | Reference | |
| SQI | 0.848 (0.493–1.461) | 0.553 |
| IBI | 0.673 (0.415–1.091) | 0.108 |
ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation; TTM, targeted temperature management; CII, continuous intravenous insulin; SQI, subcutaneous insulin; IBI, intravenous bolus insulin
Association between insulin administration method and neurological outcomes
Table 5 shows the demographic and clinical characteristics according to the neurological outcomes. A total of 438 (79.8%) patients had poor neurological outcomes. Patients in the poor neurological outcome group were older (62.0 years [51.8–72.0] vs. 58.0 years [48.0–67.0]) than those in the good neurological outcome group, although BMI and pre-existing illness were not different between neurological outcome groups. Those in the poor neurological outcome group had fewer witnesses of collapse (268/438 vs. 94/111), a lower proportion of bystander CPR (256/438 vs. 82/111), a lower proportion of shockable rhythm (83/438 vs. 80/111), fewer cardiac etiology (242/438 vs. 103/111), longer time from collapse to ROSC (36.0 min [23.0–47.0] vs. 18.0 min [12.0–27.0]), and received higher epinephrine dose (2 mg [1–4] vs. 0 mg [0–2]) than those in the good neurological outcome group. Those in the poor neurological outcome group had higher serum lactate levels after ROSC (10.9 mg/dL [7.5–13.7] vs. 7.5 mg/dL [4.1–11.2]), higher PaCO2 (53.7 mmHg [39.0–75.1] vs. 39.0 mmHg [32.2–52.4]), more pre-TTM shock (282/438 vs. 49/111), and higher SOFA scores (12 [10–13] vs. 10 [8–12]).
Table 5. Demographic and clinical characteristics stratified by neurological outcomes.
| Variables | Good (n = 111) | Poor (n = 438) | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 58.0 (48.0–67.0) | 62.0 (51.8–72.0) | 0.006 |
| Male sex | 80 (72.1) | 289 (66.0) | 0.222 |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 23.6 (21.5–25.3) | 23.4 (20.8–26.0) | 0.718 |
| Pre-existing illness | |||
| Coronary artery disease | 20 (18.0) | 49 (11.2) | 0.052 |
| Heart failure | 5 (4.5) | 20 (4.6) | 0.978 |
| Hypertension | 47 (42.3) | 195 (44.5) | 0.680 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 34 (30.6) | 161 (36.8) | 0.228 |
| Stroke or TIA | 9 (8.1) | 32 (7.3) | 0.774 |
| Pulmonary disease | 6 (5.4) | 35 (8.0) | 0.355 |
| Renal disease | 5 (4.5) | 40 (9.1) | 0.112 |
| Liver cirrhosis | 1 (0.9) | 4 (0.9) | 1.000 |
| Witnessed | 94 (84.7) | 268 (61.2) | <0.001 |
| Bystander CPR | 82 (73.9) | 256 (58.4) | 0.003 |
| Shockable rhythm | 80 (72.1) | 83 (18.9) | <0.001 |
| Cardiac etiology | 103 (92.8) | 242 (55.3) | <0.001 |
| Time to ROSC, min | 18.0 (12.0–27.0) | 36.0 (23.0–47.0) | <0.001 |
| Epinephrine dose, mg | 0 (0–2) | 2 (1–4) | <0.001 |
| Serum lactate, mg/dL | 7.5 (4.1–11.2) | 10.9 (7.5–13.7) | <0.001 |
| Glucose after ROSC, mg/dL | 273 (214–334) | 291 (229–368) | 0.068 |
| PaO2, mmHg | 94.0 (72.0–147.0) | 111.0 (74.1–196.2) | 0.028 |
| PaCO2, mmHg | 39.0 (32.2–52.4) | 53.7 (39.0–75.1) | <0.001 |
| Pre-TTM shock | 49 (44.1) | 282 (64.4) | <0.001 |
| SOFA | 10 (8–12) | 12 (10–13) | <0.001 |
| Target temperature | 0.865 | ||
| 33°C–34°C | 91 (82.0) | 356 (81.3) | |
| 35°C–36°C | 20 (18.0) | 82 (18.7) |
TIA, transient ischemic attack; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation; TTM, targeted temperature management; SOFA, sequential organ failure assessment
Multivariate logistic regression analysis found that age (aOR, 1.031; 95% CIs, 1.008–1.054), shockable rhythm (aOR, 0.183; 95% CIs, 0.096–0.349), cardiac etiology (aOR, 0.196; 95% CIs, 0.076–0.506), time from collapse to ROSC (aOR, 1.074; 95% CIs, 1.048–1.102), PaO2 (aOR, 1.003; 95% CIs, 1.000–1.006), PaCO2 (aOR, 1.015; 95% CIs, 1.001–1.029), and pre-TTM shock (aOR, 1.855; 95% CIs, 1.037–3.319) were associated with poor neurological outcome. The insulin administration method was not associated with the 6-month neurological outcomes after adjusting covariates (Table 6).
Table 6. The association between insulin administration method and poor neurological outcomes.
| Variables | Adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) | p |
|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 1.037 (1.015–1.059) | 0.001 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 0.792 (0.427–1.471) | 0.460 |
| Renal disease | 1.469 (0.461–4.680) | 0.515 |
| Witnessed | 0.776 (0.378–1.590) | 0.488 |
| Shockable rhythm | 0.182 (0.099–0.336) | < 0.001 |
| Cardiac etiology | 0.203 (0.083–0.496) | < 0.001 |
| Time to ROSC, min | 1.063 (1.042–1.083) | < 0.001 |
| PaO2, mmHg | 1.003 (1.000–1.005) | 0.049 |
| PaCO2, mmHg | 1.014 (1.001–1.028) | 0.036 |
| Pre-TTM shock | 1.632 (0.933–2.854) | 0.086 |
| Target temperature | 1.240 (0.533–2.882) | 0.617 |
| 33°C–34°C | Reference | |
| 35°C–36°C | ||
| Insulin administration method | ||
| CII | Reference | |
| SQI | 0.660 (0.335–1.301) | 0.230 |
| IBI | 1.757 (0.867–3.560) | 0.118 |
ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation; TTM, targeted temperature management; CII, continuous intravenous insulin; SQI, subcutaneous insulin; IBI, intravenous bolus insulin
Association between glucose variables and neurological outcomes
Table 7 shows the glucose variables stratified by neurological outcome groups. The poor neurological outcome group had higher maximum glucose (343 mg/dL [284–410] vs. 308 mg/dL [250–366]), mean glucose (179 mg/dL [154–216] vs. 164 mg/dL [145–189]), SD (48.2 [35.9–67.0] vs. 41.1 [29.9–52.9]), and more frequent moderate hypoglycemia (52/438 vs. 6/111) than the good neurological outcome group (Table 7).
Table 7. Glucose characteristics during 72 h after cardiac arrest stratified by neurological outcomes.
| Characteristics | Good (n = 111) | Poor (n = 438) | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum, mg/dL | 308 (250–366) | 343 (284–410) | <0.001 |
| Mean, mg/dL | 164 (145–189) | 179 (154–216) | <0.001 |
| SD | 41.1 (29.9–52.9) | 48.2 (35.9–67.0) | <0.001 |
| Minimum, mg/dL | 98 (89–111) | 100 (82–116) | 0.590 |
| Moderate hypoglycemia | 6 (5.4) | 52 (11.9) | 0.048 |
| Severe hypoglycemia | 4 (3.6) | 13 (3.0) | 0.730 |
SD, standard deviation
Table 8 shows the association between glucose variables during 72 h and neurological outcomes. Maximum glucose (aOR, 1.004; 95% CIs, 1.001–1.007), mean glucose (aOR, 1.009; 95% CIs, 1.002–1.016), andSD (aOR, 1.019; 95% CIs, 1.005–1.032) of glucose were independently associated with poor neurological outcomes.
Table 8. The association between glucose variables during 72 h and neurological outcomes.
| Characteristics | Adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) | p |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum | 1.004 (1.001–1.007) | 0.004 |
| Mean | 1.009 (1.002–1.016) | 0.013 |
| SD | 1.019 (1.005–1.032) | 0.006 |
| Minimum | 1.002 (0.993–1.011) | 0.688 |
| Moderate hypoglycemia | 1.331 (0.457–3.878) | 0.600 |
| Severe hypoglycemia | 0.856 (0.176–4.162) | 0.847 |
SD, standard deviation
Adjusted for age, first monitored rhythm, etiology of cardiac arrest, time from collapse to ROSC, PaO2 after ROSC, PaCO2 after ROSC, and pre-targeted temperature management shock
Discussion
This retrospective analysis found that the insulin administration method had no association with the achievement of mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL and the 6-month neurological outcome. Nevertheless, the CII group had the lowest mean glucose levels, and the IBI group had the highest SD of glucose levels. The CII and IBI groups had lower minimum glucose levels than the SQI group. The IBI group had a higher incidence of severe hypoglycemia. Higher maximum glucose, mean glucose, and SD of glucose were independently associated with poor neurological outcomes.
CII is the preferred route and delivery method of insulin in critically ill patients with hyperglycemic crises, such as perioperative care of cardiac surgery, cardiogenic shock, myocardial infarction, and acute ischemic stroke [16]. Such situations may require a rapid change in the insulin level or be associated with poor perfusion of subcutaneous tissue; for these reasons, guidelines recommend CII in critically ill patients instead of SQI [17]. A study comparing CII to SQI in patients with diabetes undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting demonstrated that CII was associated with lower postoperative blood glucose and reduced mortality [9]. Nevertheless, SQI is still used to control blood glucose in critically ill patients [18]. Likewise, IBI has a comparable effect on blood glucose to CII without any adverse effect [19]. Although CII was used the most, SQI and IBI were also used in about half of the patients in the present study. We found that the SQI and IBI groups had higher mean blood glucose levels during the 72 h after TTM initiation than the CII group. Higher mean blood glucose level was associated with the 6-month poor neurological outcomes in the present study. However, SQI or IBI had no association with the achievement of mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL and the 6-month neurological outcomes compared to CII. It might be postulated that SQI or IBI is not inferior to CII regarding controlling hyperglycemia, considering the independent association between high mean glucose and poor neurological outcome.
Regardless of the relationship of the insulin administration method with clinical outcomes, regarding glycemic control, CII seems to be the best measure among the three insulin administration methods. Hyperglycemia early after ROSC, at admission, or during 36 h after admission in survivors of cardiac arrest who underwent therapeutic hypothermia or TTM was associated with poor neurological outcomes [2,4,5]. The blood glucose level after ROSC was not associated with the neurological outcomes in the present study. We postulate that because we excluded the patients without hyperglycemia within 24 h after ROSC, it might affect the insignificant relationship between glucose after ROSC and neurological outcomes; this is because the patients with no hyperglycemia after ROSC would be injured less than those with hyperglycemia due to ischemic insult. However, consistent with the previous study reports, high maximum and mean glucose levels during the 72 h following initiation of TTM were associated with poor neurological outcomes in the present study. Our results strengthen the importance of glucose control for a more extended period following ROSC.
Blood glucose level and glucose variability have been assessed in comatose cardiac arrest survivors, and high glucose variability is associated with poor neurological outcomes [2,3,5]. We calculated the SD of glucose for 72 h after the initiation of TTM to determine glucose variability. We also found that high SD of glucose was associated with poor neurological outcomes in the present study. Although there was no association between the insulin administration method and neurological outcomes, lower mean glucose levels and lower SD of glucose associated with favorable neurological outcomes emphasize that the CII may be the best measure to control glycemic status in cardiac arrest survivors.
A landmark trial regarding glucose control in critically ill patients revealed that intensive glucose control (81 to 110 mg/dL) increased mortality in the intensive care unit, and the high mortality in the intensive glucose control group was associated with iatrogenic hypoglycemia [6,20]. Therefore, avoiding hypoglycemia is as crucial as avoiding hyperglycemia when controlling blood glucose. Although we found no association between neurological outcomes and moderate or severe hypoglycemia, the IBI and CII groups had frequent severe hypoglycemia compared to the SQI group in the present study. Frequent blood glucose monitoring is required more in the IBI and CII groups than in the SQI group to avoid hypoglycemia. Conventional glucose control (target ≤ 180 mg/dL) resulted in total 16.3% of hypoglycemia (moderate hypoglycemia, 15.8%; severe hypoglycemia, 0.5%) in a randomized control trial [6]. We reported 13.7% of hypoglycemia (moderate hypoglycemia, 10.6%; severe hypoglycemia, 3.1%). In the randomized control group, patients in the conventional glucose control group had a history of diabetes mellitus in about 20%, whereas we reported that 35.5% of the patients had a history of diabetes mellitus [6]. Diabetes mellitus does not seem to play a role in hypoglycemia during insulin treatment.
This study has several limitations. Although we used the data from the prospective multicenter registry, we can only demonstrate an association because this is a retrospective analysis. Of the total registry, about 60% of the patients were excluded, which might have caused selection bias. The registry is configured to record blood glucose every 4 h during TTM. Therefore, glucose characteristics might be different from the actual values. Although diabetes mellitus was not associated with neurological outcomes, pre-existing diabetes mellitus differed among the insulin treatment groups. Glycated hemoglobin has been reported to be associated with neurological outcomes in comatose cardiac arrest survivors [21], which means that glucose control status before cardiac arrest rather than the history of diabetes mellitus might contribute to neurological outcomes. However, we could not analyze the data according to glycated hemoglobin level due to the limitation of data. Future studies need to address the interaction of the insulin administration method with glycemic control status. The target temperature differed among the insulin treatment groups because the target temperature and the insulin administration method depended on the post-cardiac arrest care protocol at each hospital rather than the attending physician. However, the target temperature was not associated with neurological outcomes in the present study. The targeted temperature management trial also showed no difference in blood glucose and glucose variability between the target temperature groups [2]. Even between CII and IBI, the detailed administration method is different. The total insulin dosage may vary depending on the insulin administration method. Due to data limitations, it was impossible to compare the total amount of insulin administered in the present study.
Conclusions
The insulin administration method was not associated with the achievement of mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL and the 6-month neurological outcomes in OHCA survivors who underwent TTM. The CII method had lower mean glucose and lower SD of glucose rather than the IBI and SQI methods.
Supporting information
The participating hospitals in Korean Hypothermia Network have their insulin administration protocol. The protocols are a bit different from each other.
(PDF)
(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
The following investigators participated in the Korean Hypothermia Network. Chair: Kyung Woon Jeung (Chonnam National University Hospital, E-mail:neoneti@hanmail.net). Principal investigators of each hospital: Kyu Nam Park (The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital); Minjung Kathy Chae (Ajou University Medical Center); Won Young Kim (Asan Medical Center); Byung Kook Lee (Chonnam National University Hospital); Dong Hoon Lee (Chung-Ang University Hospital); Tae Chang Jang (Daegu Catholic University Medical Center); Jae Hoon Lee (Dong-A University Hospital); Yoon Hee Choi (Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital); Je Sung You (Gangnam Severance Hospital); Young Hwan Lee (Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital); In Soo Cho (Hanil General Hospital); Su Jin Kim (Korea University Anam Hospital); Jong-Seok Lee (Kyung Hee University Medical Center); Yong Hwan Kim (Samsung Changwon Hospital); Min Seob Sim (Samsung Medical Center); Jonghwan Shin (Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center); Yoo Seok Park (Severance Hospital); Hyung Jun Moon (Soonchunhyang University Hospital Cheonan); Won Jung Jeong (The Catholic University of Korea, St. Vincent’s Hospital); Joo Suk Oh (The Catholic University of Korea, Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital); Seung Pill Choi (The Catholic University of Korea, Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital); Kyoung-Chul Cha (Wonju Severance Christian Hospital).
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and itsSupporting Information files.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by a grant from National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2021R1A2C1005800). BK Lee received this fund. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, publication decision, or manuscript preparation. There was no additional external funding received for this study.
References
- 1.Skrifvars MB, Pettila V, Rosenberg PH, Castren M. A multiple logistic regression analysis of in-hospital factors related to survival at six months in patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation.Resuscitation.2003; 59: 319–328. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(03)00238-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Borgquist O, Wise MP, Nielsen N, Al-Subaie N, Cranshaw J, Cronberg T, et al. Dysglycemia, Glycemic Variability, and Outcome After Cardiac Arrest and Temperature Management at 33 degrees C and 36 degrees C.Crit Care Med. 2017; 45: 1337–1343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Cueni-Villoz N, Devigili A, Delodder F, Cianferoni S, Feihl F, Rossetti AO, et al. Increased blood glucose variability during therapeutic hypothermia and outcome after cardiac arrest. Crit Care Med. 2011; 39: 2225–2231. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31822572c9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kim SH, Choi SP, Park KN, Lee SJ, Lee KW, Jeong TO, et al. Association of blood glucose at admission with outcomes in patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest. Am J Emerg Med. 2014; 32: 900–904. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.05.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Lee BK, Lee HY, Jeung KW, Jung YH, Lee GS, You Y. Association of blood glucose variability with outcomes in comatose cardiac arrest survivors treated with therapeutic hypothermia. Am J Emerg Med. 2013; 31: 566–572. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2012.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Investigators N-SS, Finfer S, Chittock DR, Su SY, Blair D, Foster D, et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 1283–1297. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810625 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Nolan JP, Sandroni C, Bottiger BW, Cariou A, Cronberg T, Friberg H, et al. European Resuscitation Council and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Guidelines 2021: Post-resuscitation care.Resuscitation.2021; 161: 220–269. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.02.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Panchal AR, Bartos JA, Cabanas JG, Donnino MW, Drennan IR, Hirsch KG, et al. Part 3: Adult Basic and Advanced Life Support: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.Circulation. 2020; 142: S366–S468. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000916 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Furnary AP, Gao G, Grunkemeier GL, Wu Y, Zerr KJ, Bookin SO, et al. Continuous insulin infusion reduces mortality in patients with diabetes undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003; 125: 1007–1021. doi: 10.1067/mtc.2003.181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.American Diabetes A.Standards of medical care in diabetes—2010. Diabetes Care. 2010; 33:S11–S61. doi: 10.2337/dc10-S011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Oksanen T, Skrifvars MB, Varpula T, Kuitunen A, Pettila V, Nurmi J, et al. Strict versus moderate glucose control after resuscitation from ventricular fibrillation.Intensive Care Med. 2007; 33: 2093–2100. doi: 10.1007/s00134-007-0876-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kim SH, Park KN, Youn CS, Chae MK, Kim WY, Lee BK, et al. Outcome and status of postcardiac arrest care in Korea: results from the Korean Hypothermia Network prospective registry.Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2020; 7: 250–258. doi: 10.15441/ceem.20.035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.World Medical A.World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013; 310: 2191–2194. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Booth CM, Boone RH, Tomlinson G, Detsky AS. Is this patient dead, vegetative, or severely neurologically impaired? Assessing outcome for comatose survivors of cardiac arrest. JAMA. 2004; 291: 870–879. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.7.870 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Jones AE, Trzeciak S, Kline JA. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for predicting outcome in patients with severe sepsis and evidence of hypoperfusion at the time of emergency department presentation.Crit Care Med.2009; 37: 1649–1654. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31819def97 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Clement S, Braithwaite SS, Magee MF, Ahmann A, Smith EP, Schafer RG, et al. Management of diabetes and hyperglycemia in hospitals. Diabetes Care. 2004; 27: 553–591. doi: 10.2337/diacare.27.2.553 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Moghissi ES, Korytkowski MT, DiNardo M, Einhorn D, Hellman R, Hirsch IB, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American Diabetes Association consensus statement on inpatient glycemic control. Diabetes Care. 2009; 32: 1119–1131. doi: 10.2337/dc09-9029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Baker L, Maley JH, Arevalo A, DeMichele F 3rd, Mateo-Collado R, Finkelstein S, et al. Real-world characterization of blood glucose control and insulin use in the intensive care unit. Sci Rep. 2020; 10: 10718. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-67864-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Hemmerling TM, Schmid MC, Schmidt J, Kern S, Jacobi KE. Comparison of a continuous glucose-insulin-potassium infusion versus intermittent bolus application of insulin on perioperative glucose control and hormone status in insulin-treated type 2 diabetics. J Clin Anesth. 2001; 13: 293–300. doi: 10.1016/s0952-8180(01)00276-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Investigators N-SS, Finfer S, Liu B, Chittock DR, Norton R, Myburgh JA, et al. Hypoglycemia and risk of death in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2012;367: 1108–1118. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1204942 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Lee BK, Lee DH, Jeung KW, Yun SW, Callaway CW, Rittenberger JC. Glycated Hemoglobin is Associated with Glycemic Control and 6-Month Neurologic Outcome in Cardiac Arrest Survivors Undergoing Therapeutic Hypothermia.Neurocrit Care.2020;32: 448–458. doi: 10.1007/s12028-019-00758-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Decision Letter 0
Roles
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
16 Aug 2022
PONE-D-22-17886Association between insulin administration method and six-month neurological outcome in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who underwent targeted temperature managementPLOS ONE
Dear Dr. Lee,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.
==============================
ACADEMIC EDITOR: Thank you very much for having submitted this paper. As you can see in the comments one of the Reviewer has raised many concerns about the present version of the paper. I would give you the opportunity do address the comments.
==============================
Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 30 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on tohttps://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.
Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.
If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols athttps://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Simone Savastano
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Journal Requirements:
When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.
1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and
2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:
"This study was supported by a grant from National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2021R1A2C1005800)."
Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors athttp://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.
Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.
3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please seehttp://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.
Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please seehttp://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.
Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data:http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.
We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.
Additional Editor Comments:
Thank you very much for having submitted this paper. As you can see in the comments one of the Reviewer has raised many concerns about the present version of the paper. I would give you the opportunity do address the comments.
[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
Comments to the Author
1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Partly
**********
2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: No
**********
3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
ThePLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.
Reviewer #1: No
Reviewer #2: Yes
**********
4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
**********
5. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1: This is a retrospective study (although the data were collected prospectively in a multicenter registry) comparing different methods of glucose administration (subcutaneous -SQI, intravenous bolus infusion -IBI, continuous intravenous infusion -CII) in patients admitted for OHCA (out of hospital cardiac arrest) undergoing targeted temperature management.
Insulin administration method was not associated with the 6-month neurological outcomes, however the continuous infusion was associated with lower mean glucose and lower standard deviation of glucose.
Moreover (even if that was not the endpoint of the study), it adds on the evidence that glucose variables (mean value, maximum value, SD, episodes of moderate hypoglycemia) are associated with neurological outcome after OHCA.
It is also interesting to note that SQI and IBI method were associated with a mean glucose level (respectively 181 and 184 mg/dl) higher than the cutoff of <180 mg/dl recommended in the guidelines, being the CII method the only one with a mean glucose level in target (168 mg/dl) according to the guidelines.
Finally, although there was no association between the insulin administration method and neurological outcomes, lower mean glucose levels and lower SD of glucose were associated with favorable neurological outcomes and CII was associated with ower mean glucose levels and lower SD of glucose, suggesting that the CII may be the best measure to control glycemic status in cardiac arrest survivors.
Some issues come to mind:
- It would be interesting to know if there were statistical differences in terms of total unit of insulin administered between the three methods.
- At line 261 “A landmark trial regarding glucose control in critically ill patients revealed that intensive glucose control (< 180 mg/dL) increased mortality in the intensive care unit” is probably a typo since, according to the reference (6), the intensive glucose control in the trial was between 81 and 10mg/dl.
Other than this minor issues, the article seems fit for publication
Reviewer #2: Review PONE-D-22-17886
In this article authors retrospectively investigate the association between insulin administration method and neurological outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survivors; data were extracted from a multicentre registry of patients with OHCA who underwent targeted temperature management (TTM). Authors ambitiously tried to use Cerebral Performance Category Scale as primary endpoint, evaluating its association with insulin administration method. Insulin regulating mechanism is known to be altered in patient with cardiac arrest.
However, the physiopathological mechanism according to which it has been hypothesized that insulin administration method would be associated with neurological outcome is not clearly described: maybe one way of administration (CII) should better achieve the optimal glucose target? In this case, first step analysis should address this physiopathological mechanism; the association between insulin administration method and neurological outcomes in OHCA should be investigated secondarily.
Major issues
1. The three different groups according to way of insulin administration (SQUI, IBI and CII) are characterized by significantly different glucose values, prevalence of diabetes mellitus and other parameters which are described to influence neurological outcome (witnesses to collapse, cardiac aetiology, time from collapse to ROSC). Based on above findings, the groups can't be considered homogeneous.
2. Why patient with adequate glucose control with insulin therapy within 24 hours from ROSC were not included?
**********
6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.
Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see ourPrivacy Policy.
Reviewer #1: No
Reviewer #2: No
**********
[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]
While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
19 Sep 2022
Dear editor, we revised the manuscript according to the requirement of the journal.
Editor
When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.
1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.
Answer) We revised the manuscript according to the PLOS One style requirements.
2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:
"This study was supported by a grant from National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2021R1A2C1005800)."
Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors athttp://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.
Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.
Answer) We added the sentence as the editor advised in the Funding Statement.
3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.
Answer) we added the minimal data set as a Supplementary file.
Dear reviewers, we appreciate your kind review. They were very helpful in improving our manuscript. After due consideration, the manuscript was revised as described below.
Response to Reviewers
Reviewer #1:
1. It would be interesting to know if there were statistical differences in terms of total unit of insulin administered between the three methods.
Answer) As you indicated, it would be interesting to know whether the amount of insulin administered varies depending on the insulin administration methods. We also thought that the topic would be very relevant. However, the registry was built to input insulin dose data optionally. Therefore, calculating insulin dose using our data is inappropriate because the input of insulin dose information was not completed, and insulin administered more frequently than every 4 hrs is not entered.
We added the following sentence in the limitation
“The total insulin dosage may vary depending on the insulin administration method. Due to data limitations, it was impossible to compare the total amount of insulin administered in the present study.”
2. At line 261 “A landmark trial regarding glucose control in critically ill patients revealed that intensive glucose control (< 180 mg/dL) increased mortality in the intensive care unit” is probably a typo since, according to the reference (6), the intensive glucose control in the trial was between 81 and 10mg/dl.
Answer) Thank you for finding the typo. We revised as “intensive glucose control (81 to 110 mg/dL)
Reviewer #2: Review PONE-D-22-17886
In this article authors retrospectively investigate the association between insulin administration method and neurological outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survivors; data were extracted from a multicentre registry of patients with OHCA who underwent targeted temperature management (TTM). Authors ambitiously tried to use Cerebral Performance Category Scale as primary endpoint, evaluating its association with insulin administration method. Insulin regulating mechanism is known to be altered in patient with cardiac arrest. However, the physiopathological mechanism according to which it has been hypothesized that insulin administration method would be associated with neurological outcome is not clearly described: maybe one way of administration (CII) should better achieve the optimal glucose target? In this case, first step analysis should address this physiopathological mechanism; the association between insulin administration method and neurological outcomes in OHCA should be investigated secondarily.
Major issues
1. The three different groups according to way of insulin administration (SQI, IBI and CII) are characterized by significantly different glucose values, prevalence of diabetes mellitus and other parameters which are described to influence neurological outcome (witnesses to collapse, cardiac aetiology, time from collapse to ROSC). Based on above findings, the groups can't be considered homogeneous.
Answer) Considering the pathophysiologic mechanism, as suggested by the reviewer, the primary outcome was mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL. We added multivariate regression analysis, which investigated the association between the insulin administration method and mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL after adjusting the covariates.
To control the heterogenous characteristics among three insulin administration methods, variables that are different in the univariate analysis (comparison among insulin administration methods) and variables that are independently associated with mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL and neurological outcomes were also included in the multivariable logistic regression analysis. Therefore, we added two tables and results and reordered the tables and results.
Accordingly, we revised the manuscript.
The following sentence in the Introduction
“To address this question, we hypothesized that the insulin administration method would be associated with neurological outcomes and changes in blood glucose.”
Was revised as following
“To address this question, we hypothesized that the insulin administration method would be related to blood glucose levels and thus to neurological outcomes.”
The following sentences in the Method
“The primary outcome was neurological outcomes assessed using CPC 6 months after ROSC and defined as good (CPC 1 or 2) or poor (CPC 3–5). The secondary outcomes were maximum glucose, mean glucose, a standard deviation (SD) of glucose, minimum glucose, moderate hypoglycemia, and severe hypoglycemia.”
Was revised as following
“The primary outcome was the achievement of mean blood glucose < 180 mg/dL. The secondary outcomes were neurological outcomes assessed using CPC 6 months after ROSC, maximum glucose, mean glucose, a standard deviation (SD) of glucose, minimum glucose, moderate hypoglycemia, and severe hypoglycemia. The neurological outcomes were defined as good (CPC 1 or 2) or poor (CPC 3–5).”
The following sentence in the Statistical analysis
“We conducted a logistic regression analysis to investigate the association between insulin administration methods and neurological outcomes.”
Was revised as following
“We conducted logistic regression analyses to investigate the association between the insulin administration method and the achievement of mean blood glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL and the association between insulin administration methods and neurological outcomes.”
The following sentences in the Statistical analysis
“All variables with a p-value < 0.2 in univariate analyses were included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis to find the covariates. We performed the Hosmer–Lemeshow test to test the goodness-of-fit of the logistic model. We selected age, first monitored rhythm, etiology of cardiac arrest, time from collapse to ROSC, PaO2 after ROSC, PaCO2 after ROSC, and pre-TTM shock as covariates those had p-value < 0.05 in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. We conducted the logistic regression analysis with insulin administration methods and covariates.”
Was revised as following
“We selected the variables with a p-value < 0.05 in comparisons among insulin administration methods as covariates for the association between insulin administration methods and mean blood glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL. Additionally, we selected the covariates after performing the multivariable logistic regression analysis with the variables with a p-value < 0.2 in comparisons between groups of mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL. We also selected the covariates for the association between insulin administration methods and neurological outcomes through the multivariable logistic regression analysis with variables with a p-value <0.2 in comparisons between neurological outcome groups. We selected the variables with a p-value < 0.05 in the multivariate logistic regression analyses as final covariates. We performed the Hosmer–Lemeshow test to test the goodness-of-fit of the logistic model.”
We reordered the Tables and added table 3 and table 4, which compares characteristics between mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL and mean glucose > 180 mg/dL and multivariable regression analysis between insulin administration methods and mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL
Table 2 � table 1
Table 3 � table 2
Table 1 � table 5
Table 4 � table 6
Table 5 � table 7
Table 6 � table 8
Glucose after ROSC among three insulin administration methods was moved to Table 1.
Mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL was added in the table 2 and revised the following sentence in the result.
The following sentence in the Results
“Mean glucose, SD of glucose, and minimum glucose were different among the three groups.”
Was revised as following
“Achievement of mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL, Mean glucose, SD of glucose, and minimum glucose differed among the three groups.”
The following tables (Table 3 and Table 4) and paragraphs were added.
“Association between insulin administration method and mean glucose under 180 mg/dL
Table 3 shows the demographic and clinical characteristics stratified by mean glucose of 180 mg/dL. A total of 296 (53.9%) achieved mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL. Patients who had mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL had lower BMI (23.0 kg/m2 [20.7–25.4]) vs. 23.9 kg/m2 [21.3–26.1]) than those had mean glucose > 180 mg/dL. Patients with mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL had fewer pre-existing illnesses (hypertension and diabetes mellitus). Patient who had mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL fewer witnesses of collapse (208/296 vs. 154/253), lower epinephrine dose (2 mg [0–4] vs. 2 mg [1–5]), lower serum lactate (9.3 mg/dL [6.0–12.6] vs. 11.3 mg/dL [8.0–14.0]), higher PaO2 (117.5 mmHg [76.0–221.0] vs. 100.0 mmHg [71.0–160.0]), lower pre-TTM shock (155/296 vs. 176/253), lower SOFA scores (11 [9–13] vs. 12 [10–14]), and a higher proportion of target temperature of 33℃–34℃ (255/296 vs. 192/253).”
“Multivariable logistic regression analysis found hypertension (aOR, 0.609; 95% CIs, 0.399–0.930), diabetes mellitus (aOR, 0.273; 95% CIs, 0.175–0.425), witnessed (aOR, 1.992; 95% CIs, 1.289–3.078), PaO2 (aOR, 1.002; 95% CIs, 1.000–1.004), pre-TTM shock (aOR, 0.541; 95% CIs, 0.355–0.826), target temperature of 35–36℃ (aOR, 0.500; 95% CIs, 0.297–0.842), glucose after ROSC (aOR, 0.995; 95% CIs, 0.993–0.997) as covariates. The insulin administration method was not associated with the achievement of mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL after adjusting covariates (Table 4).”
Table 4 was revised as Table 6 as following
The sentences in the Discussion
“This retrospective analysis found that the insulin administration method had no association with the 6-month neurological outcome. The CII group had the lowest mean glucose levels and the IBI group had the highest SD of glucose levels.”
Was revised as following
“This retrospective analysis found that the insulin administration method had no association with the achievement of mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL and the 6-month neurological outcome. Nevertheless, the CII group had the lowest mean glucose levels and the IBI group had the highest SD of glucose levels.”
The sentence in the Discussion
“However, SQI or IBI had no association with the 6-month neurological outcomes compared to CII. This discrepancy between blood glucose variables and clinical outcomes according to the insulin administration method warrants further clinical trials.”
Was revised as following
“However, SQI or IBI had no association with the achievement of mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL and the 6-month neurological outcomes compared to CII. It might be postulated that SQI or IBI is not inferior to CII regarding controlling hyperglycemia, considering the independent association between high mean glucose and poor neurological outcome.”
The sentence in the Conclusion
“The insulin administration method was not associated with the 6-month neurological outcomes in OHCA survivors who underwent TTM. The CII method was associated with lower mean glucose and lower SD of glucose rather than the IBI and SQI methods.”
Was revised as following
“The insulin administration method was not associated with the achievement of mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL and the 6-month neurological outcomes in OHCA survivors who underwent TTM. The CII method had lower mean glucose and lower SD of glucose rather than the IBI and SQI methods.”
Abstract was revised as following
“We investigated the association of insulin administration method with the achievement of mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL and neurological outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survivors who had hyperglycemia after the return of spontaneous circulation. From a multicenter prospective registry, we extracted the data of adult OHCA survivors who underwent targeted temperature management (TTM) between 2015 and 2018. Blood glucose levels every 4 h after initiating TTM were obtained for 72 h. We divided insulin administration methods into three categories: subcutaneous (SQI), intravenous bolus (IBI), and continuous intravenous (CII). We calculated the mean glucose and standard deviation (SD) of glucose. The primary outcome was the achievement of mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL. The secondary outcomes were the 6-month neurological outcome based on the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scale (good, CPC 1–2; poor, CPC 3–5), mean glucose, and SD of glucose. Of the 549 patients, 296 (53.9%) achieved mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL, and 438 (79.8%) had poor neurological outcomes, 134 (24.4%), 132 (24.0), and 283 (51.5%) were in the SQI, IBI, and CII groups, respectively. The SQI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.848; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.493–1.461) and IBI (aOR, 0.673; 95% CIs, 0.415–1.091) groups were not associated with mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL and the SQI (aOR, 0.660; 95% CIs, 0.335–1.301) and IBI (aOR, 1.757; 95% CIs, 0.867–3.560) groups were not associated with poor neurological outcomes compared to the CII group. The CII (168 mg/dL [147–202]) group had the lowest mean glucose than the SQI (181 mg/dL [156–218]) and IBI (184 mg/dL [162–216]) groups. The CII (45.0[33.9–63.5]) group had a lower SD of glucose than the IBI (50.8 [39.1–72.0]) group. The insulin administration method was not associated with achieving mean glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL and 6-month neurological outcomes.”
2. Why patient with adequate glucose control with insulin therapy within 24 hours from ROSC were not included?
Answer) We excluded the patient who had no hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dL) within 24 h after ROSC. In other words, we excluded the patients who did not require insulin administration to control the blood glucose. However, the patients who were given insulin to control blood glucose within 24 h after ROSC were included irrespective of adequate glucose control.
Submitted filename:response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter 1
Roles
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
14 Dec 2022
Association between insulin administration method and six-month neurological outcome in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who underwent targeted temperature management
PONE-D-22-17886R1
Dear Dr. Lee,
We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.
Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.
An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager athttp://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly atauthorbilling@plos.org.
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contactonepress@plos.org.
Kind regards,
Simone Savastano
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Additional Editor Comments (optional):
Thank you very much for having submitted this paper and for having addressed all the reviewers' comments. I congratulate you on work work
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
Comments to the Author
1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.
Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed
Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed
**********
2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Partly
**********
3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
**********
4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
ThePLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.
Reviewer #1: (No Response)
Reviewer #2: Yes
**********
5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
**********
6. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1: All issues were addressed and typos corrected, overall the article seems now fit for publication.
Reviewer #2: All comments have been adressed. However, since primary purpose and endpoint have been changed, the manuscript title must be modified.
**********
7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.
Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see ourPrivacy Policy.
Reviewer #1: No
Reviewer #2: No
**********
Acceptance letter
Roles
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
21 Dec 2022
PONE-D-22-17886R1
Association between insulin administration method and six-month neurological outcome in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who underwent targeted temperature management
Dear Dr. Lee:
I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contactonepress@plos.org.
If we can help with anything else, please email us atplosone@plos.org.
Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.
Kind regards,
PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff
on behalf of
Dr. Simone Savastano
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
The participating hospitals in Korean Hypothermia Network have their insulin administration protocol. The protocols are a bit different from each other.
(PDF)
(XLSX)
Submitted filename:response to reviewers.docx
Data Availability Statement
All relevant data are within the manuscript and itsSupporting Information files.