Yoko Narasaki, Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh, Andrea C. Daza, Amy S. You, Alejandra Novoa, Renal Amel Peralta, Man Kit Michael Siu, Danh V. Nguyen, Connie M. Rhee
{"title":"Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Hemodialysis Patients With Diabetes","authors":"Yoko Narasaki, Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh, Andrea C. Daza, Amy S. You, Alejandra Novoa, Renal Amel Peralta, Man Kit Michael Siu, Danh V. Nguyen, Connie M. Rhee","doi":"10.2337/dc24-0635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE In the general population, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides convenient and less-invasive glucose measurements than conventional self-monitored blood glucose and results in reduced hypo-/hyperglycemia and increased time-in-target glucose range. However, accuracy of CGM versus blood glucose is not well established in hemodialysis patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Among 31 maintenance hemodialysis patients with diabetes hospitalized from October 2020–May 2021, we conducted protocolized glucose measurements using Dexcom G6 CGM versus blood glucose, with the latter measured before each meal and at night, plus every 30-min during hemodialysis. We examined CGM-blood glucose correlations and agreement between CGM versus blood glucose using Bland-Altman plots, percentage of agreement, mean and median absolute relative differences (ARDs), and consensus error grids. RESULTS Pearson and Spearman correlations for averaged CGM versus blood glucose levels were 0.84 and 0.79, respectively; Bland-Altman showed the mean difference between CGM and blood glucose was ∼+15 mg/dL. Agreement rates using %20/20 criteria were 48.7%, 47.2%, and 50.2% during the overall, hemodialysis, and nonhemodialysis periods, respectively. Mean ARD (MARD) was ∼20% across all time periods; median ARD was 19.4% during the overall period and was slightly lower during nonhemodialysis (18.2%) versus hemodialysis periods (22.0%). Consensus error grids showed nearly all CGM values were in clinically acceptable zones A (no harm) and B (unlikely to cause significant harm). CONCLUSIONS In hemodialysis patients with diabetes, although MARD values were higher than traditional optimal analytic performance thresholds, error grids showed nearly all CGM values were in clinically acceptable zones. Further studies are needed to determine whether CGM improves outcomes in hemodialysis patients.","PeriodicalId":11140,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":14.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2337/dc24-0635","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
OBJECTIVE In the general population, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides convenient and less-invasive glucose measurements than conventional self-monitored blood glucose and results in reduced hypo-/hyperglycemia and increased time-in-target glucose range. However, accuracy of CGM versus blood glucose is not well established in hemodialysis patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Among 31 maintenance hemodialysis patients with diabetes hospitalized from October 2020–May 2021, we conducted protocolized glucose measurements using Dexcom G6 CGM versus blood glucose, with the latter measured before each meal and at night, plus every 30-min during hemodialysis. We examined CGM-blood glucose correlations and agreement between CGM versus blood glucose using Bland-Altman plots, percentage of agreement, mean and median absolute relative differences (ARDs), and consensus error grids. RESULTS Pearson and Spearman correlations for averaged CGM versus blood glucose levels were 0.84 and 0.79, respectively; Bland-Altman showed the mean difference between CGM and blood glucose was ∼+15 mg/dL. Agreement rates using %20/20 criteria were 48.7%, 47.2%, and 50.2% during the overall, hemodialysis, and nonhemodialysis periods, respectively. Mean ARD (MARD) was ∼20% across all time periods; median ARD was 19.4% during the overall period and was slightly lower during nonhemodialysis (18.2%) versus hemodialysis periods (22.0%). Consensus error grids showed nearly all CGM values were in clinically acceptable zones A (no harm) and B (unlikely to cause significant harm). CONCLUSIONS In hemodialysis patients with diabetes, although MARD values were higher than traditional optimal analytic performance thresholds, error grids showed nearly all CGM values were in clinically acceptable zones. Further studies are needed to determine whether CGM improves outcomes in hemodialysis patients.
期刊介绍:
The journal's overarching mission can be captured by the simple word "Care," reflecting its commitment to enhancing patient well-being. Diabetes Care aims to support better patient care by addressing the comprehensive needs of healthcare professionals dedicated to managing diabetes.
Diabetes Care serves as a valuable resource for healthcare practitioners, aiming to advance knowledge, foster research, and improve diabetes management. The journal publishes original research across various categories, including Clinical Care, Education, Nutrition, Psychosocial Research, Epidemiology, Health Services Research, Emerging Treatments and Technologies, Pathophysiology, Complications, and Cardiovascular and Metabolic Risk. Additionally, Diabetes Care features ADA statements, consensus reports, review articles, letters to the editor, and health/medical news, appealing to a diverse audience of physicians, researchers, psychologists, educators, and other healthcare professionals.