↓ Skip to main content

Effects of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide on gastric emptying, glycaemia and insulinaemia during critical illness: a prospective, double blind, randomised, crossover study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide on gastric emptying, glycaemia and insulinaemia during critical illness: a prospective, double blind, randomised, crossover study
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0718-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Palash Kar, Caroline E Cousins, Christopher E Annink, Karen L Jones, Marianne J Chapman, Juris J Meier, Michael A Nauck, Michael Horowitz, Adam M Deane

Abstract

IntroductionInsulin is used to treat hyperglycaemia in critically ill patients but can cause hypoglycaemia, which is associated with poorer outcomes. In health glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) is a potent glucose-lowering peptide that does not cause hypoglycaemia. The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of exogenous GIP infusion on blood glucose concentrations, glucose absorption, insulinaemia and gastric emptying in critically ill patients without known diabetes.MethodsA total of 20 ventilated patients (Median age 61 (range: 22 to 79) years, APACHE II 21.5 (17 to 26), BMI 28 (21 to 40) kg/m2) without known diabetes were studied on two consecutive days in a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, cross-over fashion. Intravenous GIP (4pmol/kg/min) or placebo (0.9% saline) was infused between T¿=¿¿60 to 300 minutes. At T0, 100 ml of liquid nutrient (2 kcal/ml) containing 3-O-Methylglucose (3-OMG), 100mcg of Octanoic acid and 20 MBq Tc-99m Calcium Phytate, was administered via a nasogastric tube. Blood glucose and serum 3-OMG (an index of glucose absorption) concentrations were measured. Gastric emptying, insulin and glucagon levels and plasma GIP concentrations were also measured.ResultsWhile administration of GIP increased plasma GIP concentrations three- to four-fold (T¿=¿¿60 23.9 (16.5 to 36.7) versus T¿=¿0 84.2 (65.3 to 111.1); P <0.001) and plasma glucagon (iAUC300 4217 (1891 to 7715) versus 1232 (293 to 4545) pg/ml.300 minutes; P¿=¿0.04), there were no effects on postprandial blood glucose (AUC300 2843 (2568 to 3338) versus 2819 (2550 to 3497) mmol/L.300 minutes; P¿=¿0.86), gastric emptying (AUC300 15611 (10993 to 18062) versus 15660 (9694 to 22618) %.300 minutes; P¿=¿0.61), glucose absorption (AUC300 50.6 (22.3 to 74.2) versus 64.3 (9.9 to 96.3) mmol/L.300 minutes; P¿=¿0.62) or plasma insulin (AUC300 3945 (2280 to 6731) versus 3479 (2316 to 6081) mU/L.300 minutes; P¿=¿0.76).ConclusionsIn contrast to its profound insulinotropic effect in health, the administration of GIP at pharmacological doses does not appear to affect glycaemia, gastric emptying, glucose absorption or insulinaemia in the critically ill patient.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612000488808. Registered 3 May 2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 69 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 18 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 10%
Engineering 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 22 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 January 2016.
All research outputs
#15,739,529
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,131
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,662
of 395,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#428
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.