K Nørgaard1. 1. Department of Endocrinology, Hvidovre Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark. noergaard@hh.hosp.dk
Abstract
AIMS: To record the number of patients treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), the attitude to CSII treatment among diabetes care providers and the characteristics of pump users in Denmark. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to all departments of endocrinology, internal medicine and paediatrics in Denmark (n = 73) to determine the number of diabetic patients treated with CSII and the attitudes of chief consultants to it. All patients using CSII were identified and data from their records collected. RESULTS: Primarily Type 1 diabetic patients (n = 142) were treated with CSII, approx. 0.5% of patients in Denmark. The explanations given for this low frequency varied for non-CSII and CSII-using diabetologists. Both found lack of funding important. In addition, the non-CSII-using group had a perception that CSII was dangerous. The CSII-using diabetologists found that no more patients were interested and that it did not significantly improve metabolic control. The mean age of pump users was 48.1 +/- 10.5 years and the mean time wearing a pump 14.1 +/- 6.3 years. Mean HbA1c was 7.9 +/- 1.2% during CSII, with a significant difference among the 15 centres (P < 0.05) and a tendency to be lower in females (P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: CSII is infrequently used in Denmark despite pump users showing reasonably good metabolic control. The most common explanations for these low figures are lack of expertise and funding for CSII. If more patients in Denmark were to be offered pumps, education of healthcare providers would be needed and the funding would have to be clarified.
AIMS: To record the number of patients treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), the attitude to CSII treatment among diabetes care providers and the characteristics of pump users in Denmark. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to all departments of endocrinology, internal medicine and paediatrics in Denmark (n = 73) to determine the number of diabeticpatients treated with CSII and the attitudes of chief consultants to it. All patients using CSII were identified and data from their records collected. RESULTS: Primarily Type 1 diabeticpatients (n = 142) were treated with CSII, approx. 0.5% of patients in Denmark. The explanations given for this low frequency varied for non-CSII and CSII-using diabetologists. Both found lack of funding important. In addition, the non-CSII-using group had a perception that CSII was dangerous. The CSII-using diabetologists found that no more patients were interested and that it did not significantly improve metabolic control. The mean age of pump users was 48.1 +/- 10.5 years and the mean time wearing a pump 14.1 +/- 6.3 years. Mean HbA1c was 7.9 +/- 1.2% during CSII, with a significant difference among the 15 centres (P < 0.05) and a tendency to be lower in females (P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: CSII is infrequently used in Denmark despite pump users showing reasonably good metabolic control. The most common explanations for these low figures are lack of expertise and funding for CSII. If more patients in Denmark were to be offered pumps, education of healthcare providers would be needed and the funding would have to be clarified.