E 1). A single BG measurement < 2.2 mM was detected in the MPC group vs 0 in the control group. The sampling frequency was significantly higher in the MPC group.Table 1 (abstract P138) MPC group (n = 25) BG (mM) HGI (mM) Interval (min) 5.9 (5.5?.3) 0.37 (0.17?.91) 105 (94?39) Control group (n = 25) 7.4 (6.9?.6) 1.56 (1.06?.45) 173 (160?94) P <0.001 <0.001 <0.P137 Computer-advised insulin infusion in critically ill patients ?a randomized controlled trialJ Cordingley1, N Dormand1, S Squire1, M Wilinska2, L Chassin2, R Hovorka2, C Morgan1 1Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK; 2University of Cambridge, UK Critical Care 2007, 11(Suppl 2):P137 (doi: 10.1186/cc5297) Introduction Tight blood glucose (BG) control has been shown to decrease morbidity and mortality in patients in the surgical ICU [1] but is difficult to achieve using standard insulin infusion protocols. We previously evaluated a software model predictive control (MPC) insulin administration algorithm in postcardiac surgery patients [2]. This study investigated the use of an enhanced MPC algorithm (eMPC) in more severely ill patients over 72 hours. Methods Fourteen (seven male) critically ill ventilated medical and surgical patients, mean age 65 years, with an arterial BG > six.7 mmol/l within 24 hours of ICU admission (RBH) or currently MedChemExpress MC-207,110 dihydrochloride receiving insulin infusion, and anticipated to need mechanical ventilation for a lot more than 72 hours, had been treated either with BG manage by the common ICU insulin intravenous infusion protocol [2] or eMPC-advised insulin infusion (n = six) for 72 hours. The eMPC algorithm, installed on a bedside personal computer, demands input of present insulin needs, bodyweight, carbohydrate intake and BG concentration. The algorithm advises the time for you to next BG sample (as much as four hours) and also the insulin infusion price, targeted to sustain BG at 4.four?.1 mmol/l. Patients in the eMPC group had BG measured hourly (for safety) but values were only entered if requested by the algorithm. Benefits The imply (SD) glucose concentration was drastically reduce inside the eMPC group (six.0 (0.34) vs 7.1 (0.54) mmol/l, P < 0.001). The mean insulin infusion rate was not significantly different (4.1 (2.7) vs 3.1 (1.8) IU/hour, eMPC vs standard care). BG sampling occurred more frequently in the eMPC group, with a mean of every 1.1 vs 1.9 hours (P < 0.05). No patients in either group had any BG measurements <2.2 mmol/l. Conclusion The eMPC algorithm was effective in maintaining tight BG control in this more severely ill patient group without any episodes of hypoglycaemia (BG < 2.2 mmol/l), but required more frequent BG measurement. We evaluated the performance of two bedside glucometers (GM) in ICU patients. Methods Four hundred and fifty-two arterial blood samples were prospectively analysed in 37 adult ICU patients subjected to TGC. Arterial BG was simultaneously determined using a reference test PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20740215 (ABL? and two GM (Accu-Chek?and HemoCue?. Data wereConclusions A small but significant lower in serum glucose almost certainly benefits inside a little but statistically nonsignificant lower in mortality and length of stay.P140 Reliability of arterial, capillary and venous point-of-care glucose measurements within the intensive care unit setting: evaluation of two glucometersA Pereira, A Cavalcanti, T Correa, F Almeida, E Figueiredo, E Silva Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, S Paulo, Brazil Important Care 2007, 11(Suppl 2):P140 (doi: 10.1186/cc5300) Introduction Improved threat of hypoglycemia will be the important drawback.