Literature DB >> 21357356

Accuracy and reliability of continuous glucose monitoring in the intensive care unit: a head-to-head comparison of two subcutaneous glucose sensors in cardiac surgery patients.

Sarah E Siegelaar, Temo Barwari, Jeroen Hermanides, Wim Stooker, Peter H J van der Voort, J Hans DeVries.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21357356      PMCID: PMC3041230          DOI: 10.2337/dc10-1882

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Care        ISSN: 0149-5992            Impact factor:   19.112


× No keyword cloud information.
Hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glucose variability are common during intensive care unit (ICU) stay and are associated with increased mortality (1–3). Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is a promising tool to assist glucose control, but the accuracy and reliability of these devices in critically ill patients is uncertain (4,5). Therefore, we studied two different CGM devices postoperatively in cardiac surgery patients in an investigator-initiated trial. We placed two CGM devices (Guardian RT, Medtronic Minimed; FreeStyle Navigator, Abbott Diabetes Care) subcutaneously in the abdominal wall before surgery in 60 patients. This is the first time the Navigator has been studied in an ICU setting. Both devices were calibrated simultaneously upon arrival at the ICU after surgery. Further calibrations were performed according to manufacturers’ instructions. An arterial blood glucose value was measured with an AccuChek device (Performa II, Roche/Hitachi) as a reference value every 2 hours. Relative absolute deviation (RAD) between reference and sensor glucose values was calculated in six 5-min intervals after the time of the reference glucose to assess a possible delay. Of the 60 patients, 48 were male with a median (range) age of 65 years (25–85), and 16 were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. The median (IQR) maximum Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and ICU stay were 6.0 (5.3–7.0) and 23.0 hours (19.0–45.8), and mean (SD) glucose was 8.2 (2.1) mmol/L. We obtained 1,017 reference glucose values of which 77.8% could be paired with a Guardian and 91.8% with a Navigator value in the first interval. Missing values indicate technical problems with the device: signal loss (Guardian: 19 patients; Navigator: 1 patient), sensor failure (Guardian: 7 patients; Navigator: 2 patients), interruption of real-time representation of glucose values after delayed recalibration (Guardian) or temporarily failure of data-recording (Navigator: 4 patients). Median (IQR) RAD was significantly smaller for Navigator compared with Guardian glucose measurements at intervals 0–4 and 5–9 min after the reference glucose (11% [8-16] and 10% [8-16] compared with 14% [11-18] and 14% [11-17], P = 0.05 and P = 0.001, Wilcoxon signed rank test). The lowest RAD of the Navigator was observed 5–9 min after reference glucose, but no significant effect of time was seen (P = 0.74, repeated measures ANOVA). The accuracy of the Guardian did show a delay with the lowest RAD after 15–19 min (11% [8-13], P = 0.01). There was no consistency in under- or overestimation of the reference glucose values. No separate analyses to assess accuracy during hypoglycemia were performed because no severe hypoglycemia (≤2.2 mmol/L) was measured and only 34 of 1,017 reference glucose values were mildly hypoglycemic (≤4.7 mmol/L) (1). We report that the FreeStyle Navigator CGM system performed better than the Guardian RT in accuracy as well as reliability in postoperative cardiac surgery patients during ICU stay. Remarkably, the RAD of both sensors was quite good compared with reported data for outpatients. According to these results, we conclude that this device can be used in this group of ICU patients characterized by relatively low disease severity scores and low mortality rates. Whether or not the use of CGM improves glycemic control and mortality needs further research.
  5 in total

1.  Hypoglycemia is associated with intensive care unit mortality.

Authors:  Jeroen Hermanides; Robert J Bosman; Titia M Vriesendorp; Ron Dotsch; Frits R Rosendaal; Durk F Zandstra; Joost B L Hoekstra; J Hans DeVries
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 7.598

2.  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

3.  Evaluation of a continuous glucose monitor in an unselected general intensive care population.

Authors:  Grant C Price; Karen Stevenson; Timothy S Walsh
Journal:  Crit Care Resusc       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.159

4.  Pre- and postoperative accuracy and safety of a real-time continuous glucose monitoring system in cardiac surgical patients: a randomized pilot study.

Authors:  Susan J Logtenberg; Nanne Kleefstra; Ferdinand T Snellen; Klaas H Groenier; Robbert J Slingerland; Arno P Nierich; Henk J Bilo
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 6.118

5.  Glucose variability is associated with intensive care unit mortality.

Authors:  Jeroen Hermanides; Titia M Vriesendorp; Robert J Bosman; Durk F Zandstra; Joost B Hoekstra; J Hans Devries
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 7.598

  5 in total
  11 in total

1.  Accuracy of subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring in critically ill adults: improved sensor performance with enhanced calibrations.

Authors:  Lalantha Leelarathna; Shane W English; Hood Thabit; Karen Caldwell; Janet M Allen; Kavita Kumareswaran; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Marianna Nodale; Ahmad Haidar; Mark L Evans; Rowan Burnstein; Roman Hovorka
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2013-11-04       Impact factor: 6.118

Review 2.  Inpatient Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Glycemic Outcomes.

Authors:  David L Levitt; Kristi D Silver; Elias K Spanakis
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2017-03-14

3.  Accuracy of Intra-arterial and Subcutaneous Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Postoperative Cardiac Surgery Patients in the ICU.

Authors:  Marjolein K Sechterberger; Peter H J van der Voort; Paul J Strasma; J Hans DeVries
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2014-12-23

4.  Accuracy of 2 Different Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery.

Authors:  Fanny Schierenbeck; Anders Franco-Cereceda; Jan Liska
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2016-07-09

5.  The use of continuous glucose monitoring combined with computer-based eMPC algorithm for tight glucose control in cardiosurgical ICU.

Authors:  Petr Kopecký; Miloš Mráz; Jan Bláha; Jaroslav Lindner; Stĕpán Svačina; Roman Hovorka; Martin Haluzík
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus conventional glucose monitoring in critically ill patients: a systematic review study protocol.

Authors:  Weidong Zhu; Libing Jiang; Shouyin Jiang; Yuefeng Ma; Mao Zhang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-01-23       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Insulin treatment guided by subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring compared to frequent point-of-care measurement in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Daphne T Boom; Marjolein K Sechterberger; Saskia Rijkenberg; Susanne Kreder; Rob J Bosman; Jos Pj Wester; Ilse van Stijn; J Hans DeVries; Peter Hj van der Voort
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 8.  Continuous glucose control in the ICU: report of a 2013 round table meeting.

Authors:  Jan Wernerman; Thomas Desaive; Simon Finfer; Luc Foubert; Anthony Furnary; Ulrike Holzinger; Roman Hovorka; Jeffrey Joseph; Mikhail Kosiborod; James Krinsley; Dieter Mesotten; Stanley Nasraway; Olav Rooyackers; Marcus J Schultz; Tom Van Herpe; Robert A Vigersky; Jean-Charles Preiser
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2014-06-13       Impact factor: 9.097

9.  Feasibility of fully automated closed-loop glucose control using continuous subcutaneous glucose measurements in critical illness: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Lalantha Leelarathna; Shane W English; Hood Thabit; Karen Caldwell; Janet M Allen; Kavita Kumareswaran; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Marianna Nodale; Jasdip Mangat; Mark L Evans; Rowan Burnstein; Roman Hovorka
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 9.097

10.  Performance of the Medtronic Sentrino continuous glucose management (CGM) system in the cardiac intensive care unit.

Authors:  Mikhail Kosiborod; Rebecca K Gottlieb; Julie A Sekella; Diane Peterman; Anna Grodzinsky; Paul Kennedy; Michael A Borkon
Journal:  BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care       Date:  2014-07-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.