Literature DB >> 15578329

Introductory experience with the continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS; Medtronic Minimed) in detecting hyperglycemia by comparing the self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in non-pregnant women and in pregnant women with impaired glucose tolerance and gestational diabetes.

K J Bühling1, B Kurzidim, C Wolf, K Wohlfarth, M Mahmoudi, C Wäscher, G Siebert, J W Dudenhausen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the detection rate of hyperglycemia with a continuous glucose monitoring system compared to a self-monitoring blood glucose profile in non-pregnant, non-diabetic pregnant women, and patients with impaired glucose tolerance or gestational diabetes..
METHODS: Eight non-pregnant (NP) and 56 pregnant women (17 dietary-treated gestational diabetics (GDM), 15 women with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and 24 non-diabetic pregnant women (NDP)) underwent a 72-hour measurement with the CGMS (Medtronic Minimed, Northridge, CA, USA). Self-monitored blood glucose measurements, performed 30 minutes before and 120 minutes after each meal, were compared to the duration of hyperglycemia monitored by the continuous glucose monitoring system.
RESULTS: No clinically observable infection was found at the subcutaneous tissue where the electrode was placed. A statistically significant difference was found between the groups in body mass index, HbA1c, and in gestational age, but not in age or parity. Using the self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG), 88 % (7/8) of the NP and 54 % (13/24) of the NDP had no measurement above 6.7 mmol/l. However, 17 % (4/24) of the NDP and 40 % (6/15) of the IGT showed more than two measurements above 6.7 mmol/l compared to 24 % (4/17) of the dietary-treated GDM. The differences between these groups were not significant (p = 0.21). The mean durations (+/- SD) of hyperglycemia above 6.7 mmol/l/24 h were: NP 111 +/- 120 min, NDP 138 +/- 120 min, IGT 381.8 +/- 295 min, and GDM 190 +/- 155 min, p = 0.017; above 7.8 mmol/l/24 h NP 24 +/- 49 min, NDP 38 +/- 47 min, IGT 170.7 +/- 190 min, and GDM 64 +/- 88 min, p = 0.016; and above 8.9 mmol/l/24 h NP 9.3 +/- 25 min, NDP 7.5 +/- 14 min, IGT 59 +/- 77 min, and GDM 14 +/- 21 min, p = 0.026. There was no significant difference in the fetal outcome or rate of birth percentiles using the sensor data.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of the sensor in pregnant women is unproblematic. a) The CGMS detected more frequent and longer durations of hyperglycemia in GDM compared to non-diabetic pregnant women than the SMBG. b) Women with an IGT exhibited higher glucose levels than patients with gestational diabetes. c) The clinical importance of these hyperglycemic intervals, e.g. with respect to the risk for macrosomia, must be assessed in larger trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15578329     DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-830399

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes        ISSN: 0947-7349            Impact factor:   2.949


  17 in total

1.  Blood-induced interference of glucose sensor function in vitro: implications for in vivo sensor function.

Authors:  Ulrike Klueh; Zenghe Liu; Tianmei Ouyang; Brian Cho; Ben Feldman; Timothy P Henning; Don Kreutzer
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2007-11

2.  Metabolic biofouling of glucose sensors in vivo: role of tissue microhemorrhages.

Authors:  Ulrike Klueh; Zenghe Liu; Ben Feldman; Timothy P Henning; Brian Cho; Tianmei Ouyang; Don Kreutzer
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2011-05-01

Review 3.  Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnancy: new frontiers in clinical applications and research.

Authors:  Joyce F Sung; Masoud Mark Taslimi; Jeffrey C Faig
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2012-11-01

Review 4.  Role of continuous glucose monitoring in the management of diabetic pregnancy.

Authors:  Niranjala M Hewapathirana; Esther O'Sullivan; Helen R Murphy
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.810

5.  Glucose Profiles in Pregnant Women After a Gastric Bypass : Findings from Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Authors:  Camille Bonis; Françoise Lorenzini; Monelle Bertrand; Olivier Parant; Pierre Gourdy; Charlotte Vaurs; Laurent Cazals; Patrick Ritz; Hélène Hanaire
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 4.129

Review 6.  CGM, Pregnancy, and Remote Monitoring.

Authors:  Sarit Polsky; Rachel Garcetti
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 6.118

7.  Online Glucose Prediction Using Computationally Efficient Sparse Kernel Filtering Algorithms in Type-1 Diabetes.

Authors:  Xia Yu; Mudassir Rashid; Jianyuan Feng; Nicole Hobbs; Iman Hajizadeh; Sediqeh Samadi; Mert Sevil; Caterina Lazaro; Zacharie Maloney; Elizabeth Littlejohn; Laurie Quinn; Ali Cinar
Journal:  IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 5.485

8.  Basement Membrane-Based Glucose Sensor Coatings Enhance Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Vivo.

Authors:  Ulrike Klueh; Yi Qiao; Caroline Czajkowski; Izabela Ludzinska; Omar Antar; Donald L Kreutzer
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-08-25

Review 9.  A standard approach to continuous glucose monitor data in pregnancy for the study of fetal growth and infant outcomes.

Authors:  Teri L Hernandez; Linda A Barbour
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2012-12-26       Impact factor: 6.118

Review 10.  Patterns of glycemia in normal pregnancy: should the current therapeutic targets be challenged?

Authors:  Teri L Hernandez; Jacob E Friedman; Rachael E Van Pelt; Linda A Barbour
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 19.112

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.