Literature DB >> 22145851

Accuracy of the Enlite 6-day glucose sensor with guardian and Veo calibration algorithms.

Desmond Barry Keenan1, John Joseph Mastrototaro, Howard Zisser, Kenneth A Cooper, Gautham Raghavendhar, Scott W Lee, Jonathan Yusi, Timothy S Bailey, Ronald Leonard Brazg, Rajiv V Shah.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the accuracy of a newly developed, next-generation subcutaneous glucose sensor, evaluated for 6-day use. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Seventy-nine subjects (53 men, 26 women) with type 1 diabetes and 18 subjects (14 men, four women) with type 2 diabetes completed a three-center, prospective, sensor accuracy study. The mean age for the group was 42.2±15.0 years (mean±SD), ranging from 18 to 71 years, with a mean glycosylated hemoglobin level of 7.6±1.5%, ranging from 5.5% to 14%. Subjects wore Enlite™ sensors (Medtronic Diabetes, Northridge, CA) in the abdominal and buttocks region for two separate 7-day periods and calibrated with a home-use blood glucose meter. Subjects participated in an in-clinic testing day where frequent sampled plasma glucose samples were acquired every 15 min for 10 h. Sensor data was retrospectively processed with Guardian(®) REAL-Time (Medtronic) and Paradigm(®) Veo™ (Medtronic) calibration routines, and accuracy metrics were calculated for each algorithm and sensor location. Physiological time lag for each measurement site was calculated.
RESULTS: Based on 6,404 plasma-sensor glucose paired points, the Enlite sensor with Veo calibration algorithm produced a mean absolute relative difference of 13.86% with 97.3% of points within the A+B zones of the Clarke error grid. Threshold-only alarms detected 90.1% of hypoglycemia and 90% of hyperglycemia. Mean time lag measured at the abdominal region was 7.94±6.48 min compared with 11.70±6.71 min (P<0.0001) at the buttocks area.
CONCLUSIONS: The Enlite sensor accurately measures glucose when compared with gold standard laboratory measurements over its 6-day use. Sensors placed in the buttocks region exhibited greater time lags than sensors placed in the abdomen.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22145851     DOI: 10.1089/dia.2011.0199

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther        ISSN: 1520-9156            Impact factor:   6.118


  33 in total

1.  Continuous glucose monitoring considerations for the development of a closed-loop artificial pancreas system.

Authors:  D Barry Keenan; Benyamin Grosman; Harry W Clark; Anirban Roy; Stuart A Weinzimer; Rajiv V Shah; John J Mastrototaro
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2011-11-01

2.  Assessing the Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Calibrated With Capillary Values Using Capillary or Venous Glucose Levels as a Reference.

Authors:  Mervi Andelin; Jort Kropff; Viktorija Matuleviciene; Jeffrey I Joseph; Stig Attvall; Elvar Theodorsson; Irl B Hirsch; Henrik Imberg; Sofia Dahlqvist; David Klonoff; Börje Haraldsson; J Hans DeVries; Marcus Lind
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2016-06-28

3.  Performance evaluation of three continuous glucose monitoring systems: comparison of six sensors per subject in parallel.

Authors:  Guido Freckmann; Stefan Pleus; Manuela Link; Eva Zschornack; Hans-Martin Klötzer; Cornelia Haug
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-07-01

4.  Evaluation of stochastic adjustment for glucose sensor bias during closed-loop insulin delivery.

Authors:  Craig Kollman; Peter Calhoun; John Lum; Werner Sauer; Roy W Beck
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2013-11-15       Impact factor: 6.118

5.  Signal processing algorithms implementing the "smart sensor" concept to improve continuous glucose monitoring in diabetes.

Authors:  Andrea Facchinetti; Giovanni Sparacino; Claudio Cobelli
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-09-01

6.  Benefits and Limitations of MARD as a Performance Parameter for Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Interstitial Space.

Authors:  Lutz Heinemann; Michael Schoemaker; Günther Schmelzeisen-Redecker; Rolf Hinzmann; Adham Kassab; Guido Freckmann; Florian Reiterer; Luigi Del Re
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2019-06-19

7.  Pilot study of a prototype minimally invasive intradermal continuous glucose monitor.

Authors:  Ruth S Weinstock; Suzan Bristol; Andrew Armenia; A Chris Gesswein; B Wayne Bequette; John P Willis
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2012-11-01

8.  A clinical trial of the accuracy and treatment experience of the Dexcom G4 sensor (Dexcom G4 system) and Enlite sensor (guardian REAL-time system) tested simultaneously in ambulatory patients with type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  Viktorija Matuleviciene; Jeffrey I Joseph; Mervi Andelin; Irl B Hirsch; Stig Attvall; Aldina Pivodic; Sofia Dahlqvist; David Klonoff; Börje Haraldsson; Marcus Lind
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2014-09-18       Impact factor: 6.118

9.  Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Cardiac ICU: Current Use and Future Directions.

Authors:  Laura A Scrimgeour; Brittany A Potz; Frank W Sellke; M Ruhul Abid
Journal:  Clin Med Res (N Y)       Date:  2017-11-24

Review 10.  Wearable and implantable pancreas substitutes.

Authors:  Leonardo Ricotti; Tareq Assaf; Paolo Dario; Arianna Menciassi
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2012-09-20       Impact factor: 1.731

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.