医院环境中持续葡萄糖监测的准确性:一项观察研究

IF 8.4 1区 医学 Q1 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Diabetologia Pub Date : 2024-08-10 DOI:10.1007/s00125-024-06250-0
Mollie Y. O’Connor, Kristen L. Flint, Amy Sabean, Annabelle Ashley, Hui Zheng, Joyce Yan, Barbara A. Steiner, Nillani Anandakugan, Melissa Calverley, Rachel Bartholomew, Evelyn Greaux, Mary Larkin, Steven J. Russell, Melissa S. Putman
{"title":"医院环境中持续葡萄糖监测的准确性:一项观察研究","authors":"Mollie Y. O’Connor, Kristen L. Flint, Amy Sabean, Annabelle Ashley, Hui Zheng, Joyce Yan, Barbara A. Steiner, Nillani Anandakugan, Melissa Calverley, Rachel Bartholomew, Evelyn Greaux, Mary Larkin, Steven J. Russell, Melissa S. Putman","doi":"10.1007/s00125-024-06250-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Aims/hypothesis</h3><p>Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves glycaemic outcomes in the outpatient setting; however, there are limited data regarding CGM accuracy in hospital.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>We conducted a prospective, observational study comparing CGM data from blinded Dexcom G6 Pro sensors with reference point of care and laboratory glucose measurements during participants’ hospitalisations. Key accuracy metrics included the proportion of CGM values within ±20% of reference glucose values &gt;5.6 mmol/l or within ±1.1 mmol/l of reference glucose values ≤5.6 mmol/l (%20/20), the mean and median absolute relative difference between CGM and reference value (MARD and median ARD, respectively) and Clarke error grid analysis (CEGA). A retrospective calibration scheme was used to determine whether calibration improved sensor accuracy. Multivariable regression models and subgroup analyses were used to determine the impact of clinical characteristics on accuracy assessments.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>A total of 326 adults hospitalised on 19 medical or surgical non-intensive care hospital floors were enrolled, providing 6648 matched glucose pairs. The %20/20 was 59.5%, the MARD was 19.2% and the median ARD was 16.8%. CEGA showed that 98.2% of values were in zone A (clinically accurate) and zone B (benign). Subgroups with lower accuracy metrics included those with severe anaemia, renal dysfunction and oedema. Application of a once-daily morning calibration schedule improved accuracy (MARD 11.4%).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions/interpretation</h3><p>The CGM accuracy when used in hospital may be lower than that reported in the outpatient setting, but this may be improved with appropriate patient selection and daily calibration. Further research is needed to understand the role of CGM in inpatient settings.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Graphical Abstract</h3>\n","PeriodicalId":11164,"journal":{"name":"Diabetologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring in the hospital setting: an observational study\",\"authors\":\"Mollie Y. O’Connor, Kristen L. Flint, Amy Sabean, Annabelle Ashley, Hui Zheng, Joyce Yan, Barbara A. Steiner, Nillani Anandakugan, Melissa Calverley, Rachel Bartholomew, Evelyn Greaux, Mary Larkin, Steven J. Russell, Melissa S. Putman\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00125-024-06250-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Aims/hypothesis</h3><p>Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves glycaemic outcomes in the outpatient setting; however, there are limited data regarding CGM accuracy in hospital.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>We conducted a prospective, observational study comparing CGM data from blinded Dexcom G6 Pro sensors with reference point of care and laboratory glucose measurements during participants’ hospitalisations. Key accuracy metrics included the proportion of CGM values within ±20% of reference glucose values &gt;5.6 mmol/l or within ±1.1 mmol/l of reference glucose values ≤5.6 mmol/l (%20/20), the mean and median absolute relative difference between CGM and reference value (MARD and median ARD, respectively) and Clarke error grid analysis (CEGA). A retrospective calibration scheme was used to determine whether calibration improved sensor accuracy. Multivariable regression models and subgroup analyses were used to determine the impact of clinical characteristics on accuracy assessments.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>A total of 326 adults hospitalised on 19 medical or surgical non-intensive care hospital floors were enrolled, providing 6648 matched glucose pairs. The %20/20 was 59.5%, the MARD was 19.2% and the median ARD was 16.8%. CEGA showed that 98.2% of values were in zone A (clinically accurate) and zone B (benign). Subgroups with lower accuracy metrics included those with severe anaemia, renal dysfunction and oedema. Application of a once-daily morning calibration schedule improved accuracy (MARD 11.4%).</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions/interpretation</h3><p>The CGM accuracy when used in hospital may be lower than that reported in the outpatient setting, but this may be improved with appropriate patient selection and daily calibration. Further research is needed to understand the role of CGM in inpatient settings.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Graphical Abstract</h3>\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":11164,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diabetologia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diabetologia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-024-06250-0\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetologia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-024-06250-0","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

摘要

目的/假设连续血糖监测(CGM)可改善门诊患者的血糖预后;但有关住院期间 CGM 准确性的数据却很有限。方法我们进行了一项前瞻性观察研究,比较了盲法 Dexcom G6 Pro 传感器提供的 CGM 数据与参试者住院期间的参考护理点和实验室血糖测量值。关键的准确性指标包括 CGM 值在参考血糖值 >5.6 mmol/l ±20% 或参考血糖值 ≤5.6 mmol/l ±1.1 mmol/l 范围内的比例(%20/20)、CGM 与参考值之间绝对相对差值的平均值和中位数(分别为 MARD 和 ARD 中位数)以及克拉克误差网格分析(CEGA)。为了确定校准是否能提高传感器的准确性,采用了一种回顾性校准方案。多变量回归模型和亚组分析用于确定临床特征对准确性评估的影响。结果 共有 326 名在 19 个内科或外科非重症监护医院楼层住院的成人参加了研究,提供了 6648 个匹配的血糖对。20/20%为59.5%,MARD为19.2%,ARD中位数为16.8%。CEGA 显示,98.2% 的值位于 A 区(临床准确)和 B 区(良性)。准确度较低的亚组包括严重贫血、肾功能不全和水肿的患者。结论/解释:在医院使用 CGM 的准确性可能低于门诊报告的准确性,但通过适当的患者选择和每日校准可以提高准确性。要了解 CGM 在住院环境中的作用,还需要进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring in the hospital setting: an observational study

Aims/hypothesis

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves glycaemic outcomes in the outpatient setting; however, there are limited data regarding CGM accuracy in hospital.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, observational study comparing CGM data from blinded Dexcom G6 Pro sensors with reference point of care and laboratory glucose measurements during participants’ hospitalisations. Key accuracy metrics included the proportion of CGM values within ±20% of reference glucose values >5.6 mmol/l or within ±1.1 mmol/l of reference glucose values ≤5.6 mmol/l (%20/20), the mean and median absolute relative difference between CGM and reference value (MARD and median ARD, respectively) and Clarke error grid analysis (CEGA). A retrospective calibration scheme was used to determine whether calibration improved sensor accuracy. Multivariable regression models and subgroup analyses were used to determine the impact of clinical characteristics on accuracy assessments.

Results

A total of 326 adults hospitalised on 19 medical or surgical non-intensive care hospital floors were enrolled, providing 6648 matched glucose pairs. The %20/20 was 59.5%, the MARD was 19.2% and the median ARD was 16.8%. CEGA showed that 98.2% of values were in zone A (clinically accurate) and zone B (benign). Subgroups with lower accuracy metrics included those with severe anaemia, renal dysfunction and oedema. Application of a once-daily morning calibration schedule improved accuracy (MARD 11.4%).

Conclusions/interpretation

The CGM accuracy when used in hospital may be lower than that reported in the outpatient setting, but this may be improved with appropriate patient selection and daily calibration. Further research is needed to understand the role of CGM in inpatient settings.

Graphical Abstract

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Diabetologia
Diabetologia 医学-内分泌学与代谢
CiteScore
18.10
自引率
2.40%
发文量
193
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Diabetologia, the authoritative journal dedicated to diabetes research, holds high visibility through society membership, libraries, and social media. As the official journal of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, it is ranked in the top quartile of the 2019 JCR Impact Factors in the Endocrinology & Metabolism category. The journal boasts dedicated and expert editorial teams committed to supporting authors throughout the peer review process.
期刊最新文献
The DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin improves glycaemic control and early-stage diabetic nephropathy in adolescents with type 1 diabetes using the MiniMed 780G advanced hybrid closed-loop system: a randomised controlled trial Genetic evidence for efficacy of targeting IL-2, IL-6 and TYK2 signalling in the prevention of type 1 diabetes: a Mendelian randomisation study Risk factors for Charcot foot development in individuals with diabetes mellitus Metabolic health in people living with type 1 diabetes in Belgium: a repeated cross-sectional study Up Front
×
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