Literature DB >> 20513329

Continuous glucose monitors and the burden of tight glycemic control in critical care: can they cure the time cost?

Matthew Signal1, Christopher G Pretty, J Geoffrey Chase, Aaron Le Compte, Geoffrey M Shaw.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tight glycemic control (TGC) in critical care has shown distinct benefits but has also proven to be difficult to obtain. The risk of severe hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dl) raises significant concerns for safety. Added clinical burden has also been an issue. Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) offer frequent automated measurement and thus the possibility of using them for early detection and intervention of hypoglycemic events. Additionally, regular measurement by CGM may also be able to reduce clinical burden. AIM: An in silico study investigates the potential of CGM devices to reduce clinical effort in a published TGC protocol.
METHODS: This study uses retrospective clinical data from the Specialized Relative Insulin Nutrition Titration (SPRINT) TGC study covering 20 patients from a benchmark cohort. Clinically validated metabolic system models are used to generate a blood glucose (BG) profile for each patient, resulting in 33 continuous, separate BG episodes (6881 patient hours). The in silico analysis is performed with three different stochastic noise models: two Gaussian and one first-order autoregressive. The noisy, virtual CGM BG values are filtered and used to drive the SPRINT TGC protocol. A simple threshold alarm is used to trigger glucose interventions to avert potential hypoglycemia. The Monte Carlo method was used to get robust results from the stochastic noise models.
RESULTS: Using SPRINT with simulated CGM noise, the BG time in an 80-110 mg/dl band was reduced no more than 4.4% to 45.2% compared to glucometer sensors. Antihypoglycemic interventions had negligible effect on time in band but eliminated all recorded hypoglycemic episodes in these simulations. Assuming 4-6 calibration measurements per day, the nonautomated clinical measurements are reduced from an average of 16 per day to as low as 4. At 2.5 min per glucometer measurement, a daily saving of approximately 25-30 min per patient could potentially be achieved.
CONCLUSIONS: This paper has analyzed in silico the use of CGM sensors to provide BG input data to the SPRINT TGC protocol. A very simple algorithm was used for early hypoglycemic detection and prevention and tested with four different-sized intravenous glucose boluses. Although a small decrease in time in band (still clinically acceptable) was experienced with the addition of CGM noise, the number of hypoglycemic events was reduced. The reduction to time in band depends on the specific CGM sensor error characteristics and is thus a trade-off for reduced nursing workload. These results justify a pilot clinical trial to verify this study. (c) 2010 Diabetes Technology Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20513329      PMCID: PMC2901040          DOI: 10.1177/193229681000400317

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol        ISSN: 1932-2968


  39 in total

1.  Expert PID control system for blood glucose control in critically ill patients.

Authors:  Frederick Chee; Tyrone L Fernando; Andrey V Savkin; Vernon van Heeden
Journal:  IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed       Date:  2003-12

Review 2.  Continuous glucose monitoring: roadmap for 21st century diabetes therapy.

Authors:  David C Klonoff
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 19.112

3.  Tight glycaemic control: a survey of intensive care practice in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Marcus J Schultz; Peter E Spronk; Hazra S Moeniralam
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2006-02-25       Impact factor: 17.440

4.  A dual-rate Kalman filter for continuous glucose monitoring.

Authors:  Matthew Kuure-Kinsey; Cesar C Palerm; B Wayne Bequette
Journal:  Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2006

Review 5.  Alterations in fuel metabolism in critical illness: hyperglycaemia.

Authors:  B A Mizock
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.690

6.  The hot IVGTT two-compartment minimal model: indexes of glucose effectiveness and insulin sensitivity.

Authors:  P Vicini; A Caumo; C Cobelli
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1997-11

7.  Performance of a dose-defining insulin infusion protocol among trauma service intensive care unit admissions.

Authors:  Susan S Braithwaite; Renee Edkins; Kathy L Macgregor; Edward S Sredzienski; Michael Houston; Ben Zarzaur; Preston B Rich; Bernard Benedetto; Edmund J Rutherford
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 6.118

8.  Evaluating the clinical accuracy of two continuous glucose sensors using continuous glucose-error grid analysis.

Authors:  William L Clarke; Stacey Anderson; Leon Farhy; Marc Breton; Linda Gonder-Frederick; Daniel Cox; Boris Kovatchev
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 19.112

9.  Partitioning glucose distribution/transport, disposal, and endogenous production during IVGTT.

Authors:  Roman Hovorka; Fariba Shojaee-Moradie; Paul V Carroll; Ludovic J Chassin; Ian J Gowrie; Nicola C Jackson; Romulus S Tudor; A Margot Umpleby; Richard H Jones
Journal:  Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.310

10.  Association between hyperglycemia and increased hospital mortality in a heterogeneous population of critically ill patients.

Authors:  James Stephen Krinsley
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 7.616

View more
  16 in total

1.  Concurrent continuous glucose monitoring in critically ill patients: interim results and observations.

Authors:  Matthew Signal; Liam Fisk; Geoffrey M Shaw; J Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-11-01

2.  Autoregressive Modeling of Drift and Random Error to Characterize a Continuous Intravascular Glucose Monitoring Sensor.

Authors:  Tony Zhou; Jennifer L Dickson; J Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2017-07-14

3.  Clinical Impact of Accurate Point-of-Care Glucose Monitoring for Tight Glycemic Control in Severely Burned Children.

Authors:  Nam K Tran; Zachary R Godwin; Amanda N Steele; Steven E Wolf; Tina L Palmieri
Journal:  Pediatr Crit Care Med       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 3.624

4.  Evaluation of a continuous blood glucose monitoring system using central venous microdialysis.

Authors:  Fanny Schierenbeck; Anders Franco-Cereceda; Jan Liska
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2012-11-01

5.  Blood Glucose Levels of Subelite Athletes During 6 Days of Free Living.

Authors:  Felicity Thomas; Chris G Pretty; Thomas Desaive; J Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2016-11-01

Review 6.  Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data and Detrended Fluctuation Analysis to Determine Patient Condition: A Review.

Authors:  Felicity Thomas; Matthew Signal; J Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-06-30

Review 7.  Vascular Glucose Sensor Symposium: Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems (CGMS) for Hospitalized and Ambulatory Patients at Risk for Hyperglycemia, Hypoglycemia, and Glycemic Variability.

Authors:  Jeffrey I Joseph; Marc C Torjman; Paul J Strasma
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-06-15

8.  Continuous glucose monitoring in newborn infants: how do errors in calibration measurements affect detected hypoglycemia?

Authors:  Felicity Thomas; Mathew Signal; Deborah L Harris; Philip J Weston; Jane E Harding; Geoffrey M Shaw; J Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2014-02-27

9.  Continuous Glucose Monitoring Measures Can Be Used for Glycemic Control in the ICU: An In-Silico Study.

Authors:  Tony Zhou; Jennifer L Dickson; Geoffrey M Shaw; J Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2017-11-06

Review 10.  Glycemic control in critically ill patients.

Authors:  Chien-Wei Hsu
Journal:  World J Crit Care Med       Date:  2012-02-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.