Accuracy of a Continuous Glucose Monitor in the Intensive Care Unit: A Proposed Accuracy Standard and Calibration Protocol for Inpatient Use.

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Diabetes technology & therapeutics Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-24 DOI:10.1089/dia.2024.0074
Sewon A Bann, Jess C Hercus, Paul Atkins, Areej Alkhairy, Jackson P Loyal, Mypinder Sekhon, David J Thompson
{"title":"Accuracy of a Continuous Glucose Monitor in the Intensive Care Unit: A Proposed Accuracy Standard and Calibration Protocol for Inpatient Use.","authors":"Sewon A Bann, Jess C Hercus, Paul Atkins, Areej Alkhairy, Jackson P Loyal, Mypinder Sekhon, David J Thompson","doi":"10.1089/dia.2024.0074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background and</i> <i>Aims:</i></b> Guidelines now recommend inpatient continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use with confirmatory blood glucose measurements. However, the Food and Drug Administration has not yet officially approved CGM for inpatient use in large part because its accuracy has not been established in this setting. We tested the accuracy of the Dexcom G6 (G6) in 28 adults on an insulin infusion in a medical-surgical intensive care unit with 1064 matched CGM and arterial point-of-care pairs. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The participants were on average 57.29 (SD 2.39) years, of whom 13 had a prior diagnosis of diabetes and 14 were admitted for a surgical diagnosis. The first 19 participants received the G6 without calibration and had a mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of 13.19% (IQR 5.11, 19.03) across 659 matched pairs, which just meets the critical care expert recommendation of MARD <14%. We then aimed to improve accuracy for the subsequent 9 participants using a calibration protocol. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The MARD for calibrated participants was 9.65% (3.03, 13.33), significantly lower than for uncalibrated participants (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Calibration also demonstrated excellent safety with 100% of values within the Clarke Error Grid zones A and B compared with 99.07% without calibration. Our protocol achieved the lowest MARD and safest CEG profile in the critical care setting and well exceeds the critical care expert recommendations. Our large sample of heterogenous critically ill patients also reached comparable accuracy to the MARD of 9% for G6 in outpatients. We believe our calibration protocol will allow G6 to be used with sufficient accuracy in inpatients.</p>","PeriodicalId":11159,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes technology & therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":"797-805"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes technology & therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2024.0074","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Aims: Guidelines now recommend inpatient continuous glucose monitor (CGM) use with confirmatory blood glucose measurements. However, the Food and Drug Administration has not yet officially approved CGM for inpatient use in large part because its accuracy has not been established in this setting. We tested the accuracy of the Dexcom G6 (G6) in 28 adults on an insulin infusion in a medical-surgical intensive care unit with 1064 matched CGM and arterial point-of-care pairs. Methods: The participants were on average 57.29 (SD 2.39) years, of whom 13 had a prior diagnosis of diabetes and 14 were admitted for a surgical diagnosis. The first 19 participants received the G6 without calibration and had a mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of 13.19% (IQR 5.11, 19.03) across 659 matched pairs, which just meets the critical care expert recommendation of MARD <14%. We then aimed to improve accuracy for the subsequent 9 participants using a calibration protocol. Results: The MARD for calibrated participants was 9.65% (3.03, 13.33), significantly lower than for uncalibrated participants (P < 0.001). Calibration also demonstrated excellent safety with 100% of values within the Clarke Error Grid zones A and B compared with 99.07% without calibration. Our protocol achieved the lowest MARD and safest CEG profile in the critical care setting and well exceeds the critical care expert recommendations. Our large sample of heterogenous critically ill patients also reached comparable accuracy to the MARD of 9% for G6 in outpatients. We believe our calibration protocol will allow G6 to be used with sufficient accuracy in inpatients.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重症监护室连续血糖监测仪的准确性:住院患者使用的准确性标准和校准规程建议。
背景和目的:目前,指南建议住院病人在使用连续血糖监测仪(CGM)的同时进行血糖确认测量。然而,美国食品和药物管理局尚未正式批准在住院患者中使用 CGM,这在很大程度上是因为 CGM 在这种情况下的准确性尚未得到证实。我们测试了 Dexcom G6(G6)的准确性,28 名成人在内科外科重症监护病房输注胰岛素时,1064 对匹配的 CGM 和动脉点护理对进行了测试。研究方法参与者的平均年龄为 57.29 (SD 2.39)岁,其中 13 人曾被诊断为糖尿病,14 人因手术诊断入院。前 19 名参与者在未校准的情况下接受了 G6,在 659 个匹配对中的平均绝对相对差值(MARD)为 13.19%(IQR 5.11,19.03),刚好达到重症监护专家建议的 MARD 结果:校准参与者的 MARD 为 9.65% (3.03, 13.33),明显低于未校准参与者(P < 0.001)。校准也显示出极佳的安全性,100%的数值都在克拉克误差网格 A 区和 B 区内,而未经校准则为 99.07%。我们的方案在重症监护环境中实现了最低的 MARD 和最安全的 CEG 值,远远超过了重症监护专家的建议。我们对异质性重症患者的大样本分析也达到了与门诊病人 G6 9% 的 MARD 相媲美的准确度。我们相信,我们的校准方案将使 G6 在住院患者中的应用具有足够的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Diabetes technology & therapeutics
Diabetes technology & therapeutics 医学-内分泌学与代谢
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
14.80%
发文量
145
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics is the only peer-reviewed journal providing healthcare professionals with information on new devices, drugs, drug delivery systems, and software for managing patients with diabetes. This leading international journal delivers practical information and comprehensive coverage of cutting-edge technologies and therapeutics in the field, and each issue highlights new pharmacological and device developments to optimize patient care.
期刊最新文献
Impact of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Blood Glucose Monitoring to Support a Carbohydrate-Restricted Nutrition Intervention in People with Type 2 Diabetes. Comparison of Computational Statistical Packages for the Analysis of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data with a Reference Software, "Ambulatory Glucose Profile," in Type 1 Diabetes. Effect of Interrupting Prolonged Sitting with Frequent Activity Breaks on Postprandial Glycemia and Insulin Sensitivity in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes on Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy: A Randomized Crossover Pilot Trial. Evaluation of an Automated Priming Bolus for Improving Prandial Glucose Control in Full Closed Loop Delivery. Safe Options for the Treatment of Mothers and Babies with Pregestational Diabetes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1