BACKGROUND: Intensive insulin therapy (IIT) for glycemic control in critically ill patients has been shown to be beneficial. Continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMSs) have been approved as an adjunct to complement standard glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes mellitus. This study was designed to evaluate the accuracy of a real-time CGMS (DexCom STS) in the intensive care unit (ICU). We also evaluated its reliability and accuracy using a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic and a hyperglycemic clamp study. METHODS: Nineteen patients were enrolled in this 7-day study [13 = surgical intensive care unit (SICU), 6 = burn intensive care unit (BICU)]. The patients were on IIT for at least 2 h prior the subcutaneous sensor insertion. Mean age and body mass index for SICU and BICU patients were 60.3 +/- 3.7 and 64.5 +/- 6.2 years and 36.6 +/- 5.0 and 33.85 +/- 3.4 kg/m2, respectively. DexCom accuracy was analyzed separately for the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) calibration finger sticks, Roche Accucheck finger sticks, and the Hitachi 917 analyzer measurements on serum using Clarke error grid analysis and Bland-Altman analysis. In the clamp studies, 20 patients were enrolled, and the data were analyzed similarly. RESULTS: There were 1065 pairs of DexCom-Accucheck, 232 pairs of DexCom-J&J, and 84 pairs of DexCom-Hitachi in ICU patients. For DexCom-Accucheck, 68.26% of the pairs fell into zone A, 31.83% into zone B, and 0.75% into zone C. There were no values in zones D or E. From the 1102 matching DexCom-Beckman pairs in clamp studies, 42.29% were in zone A, 55.90% were in zone B, and 4.08% were in zone C. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high percentage of measurements in zones A and B, underestimation of hypoglycemia by DexCom measurements makes it an unreliable device in the ICU setting. Copyright 2009 Diabetes Technology Society.
BACKGROUND: Intensive insulin therapy (IIT) for glycemic control in critically illpatients has been shown to be beneficial. Continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMSs) have been approved as an adjunct to complement standard glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes mellitus. This study was designed to evaluate the accuracy of a real-time CGMS (DexCom STS) in the intensive care unit (ICU). We also evaluated its reliability and accuracy using a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic and a hyperglycemic clamp study. METHODS: Nineteen patients were enrolled in this 7-day study [13 = surgical intensive care unit (SICU), 6 = burn intensive care unit (BICU)]. The patients were on IIT for at least 2 h prior the subcutaneous sensor insertion. Mean age and body mass index for SICU and BICU patients were 60.3 +/- 3.7 and 64.5 +/- 6.2 years and 36.6 +/- 5.0 and 33.85 +/- 3.4 kg/m2, respectively. DexCom accuracy was analyzed separately for the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) calibration finger sticks, Roche Accucheck finger sticks, and the Hitachi 917 analyzer measurements on serum using Clarke error grid analysis and Bland-Altman analysis. In the clamp studies, 20 patients were enrolled, and the data were analyzed similarly. RESULTS: There were 1065 pairs of DexCom-Accucheck, 232 pairs of DexCom-J&J, and 84 pairs of DexCom-Hitachi in ICU patients. For DexCom-Accucheck, 68.26% of the pairs fell into zone A, 31.83% into zone B, and 0.75% into zone C. There were no values in zones D or E. From the 1102 matching DexCom-Beckman pairs in clamp studies, 42.29% were in zone A, 55.90% were in zone B, and 4.08% were in zone C. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high percentage of measurements in zones A and B, underestimation of hypoglycemia by DexCom measurements makes it an unreliable device in the ICU setting. Copyright 2009 Diabetes Technology Society.
Authors: G van den Berghe; P Wouters; F Weekers; C Verwaest; F Bruyninckx; M Schetz; D Vlasselaers; P Ferdinande; P Lauwers; R Bouillon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stephen Clement; Susan S Braithwaite; Michelle F Magee; Andrew Ahmann; Elizabeth P Smith; Rebecca G Schafer; Irl B Hirsch; Irl B Hirsh Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Philip A Goldberg; Mark D Siegel; Raymond R Russell; Robert S Sherwin; Joshua I Halickman; Dawn A Cooper; James D Dziura; Silvio E Inzucchi Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Frank M Brunkhorst; Christoph Engel; Frank Bloos; Andreas Meier-Hellmann; Max Ragaller; Norbert Weiler; Onnen Moerer; Matthias Gruendling; Michael Oppert; Stefan Grond; Derk Olthoff; Ulrich Jaschinski; Stefan John; Rolf Rossaint; Tobias Welte; Martin Schaefer; Peter Kern; Evelyn Kuhnt; Michael Kiehntopf; Christiane Hartog; Charles Natanson; Markus Loeffler; Konrad Reinhart Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-01-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anouk M Corstjens; Jack J M Ligtenberg; Iwan C C van der Horst; Rob Spanjersberg; Joline S W Lind; Jaap E Tulleken; John H J M Meertens; Jan G Zijlstra Journal: Crit Care Date: 2006 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Amisha Wallia; Guillermo E Umpierrez; Robert J Rushakoff; David C Klonoff; Daniel J Rubin; Sherita Hill Golden; Curtiss B Cook; Bithika Thompson Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2017-04-21
Authors: Rodolfo J Galindo; Guillermo E Umpierrez; Robert J Rushakoff; Ananda Basu; Suzanne Lohnes; James H Nichols; Elias K Spanakis; Juan Espinoza; Nadine E Palermo; Dessa Garnett Awadjie; Leigh Bak; Bruce Buckingham; Curtiss B Cook; Guido Freckmann; Lutz Heinemann; Roman Hovorka; Nestoras Mathioudakis; Tonya Newman; David N O'Neal; Michaela Rickert; David B Sacks; Jane Jeffrie Seley; Amisha Wallia; Trisha Shang; Jennifer Y Zhang; Julia Han; David C Klonoff Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2020-09-28