OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the accuracy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring system (RTCGMS) devices in an intensive care unit (ICU) to determine whether the septic status of the patient has any influence on the accuracy of the RTCGMS. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In total, 41 patients on insulin therapy were included. Patients were monitored for 72 h using RTCGMS. Arterial blood glucose (ABG) samples were obtained following the protocol established in the ICU. The results were evaluated using paired values (excluding those used for calibration) with the performance assessed using numerical accuracy. Nonparametric tests were used to determine statistically significant differences in accuracy. RESULTS: In total, 956 ABG/RTCGMS pairs were analyzed. The overall median relative absolute difference (RAD) was 13.5%, and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) criteria were 68.1%. The median RADs reported for patients with septic shock, with sepsis, and without sepsis were 11.2%, 14.3%, and 16.3%, respectively (P<0.05). Measurements meeting the ISO criteria were 74.5%, 65.6%, and 63.7% for patients with septic shock, with sepsis, and without sepsis, respectively (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that the septic status of patients influenced the accuracy of the RTCGMS in the ICU. Accuracy was significantly better in patients with septic shock in comparison with the other patient cohorts.
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the accuracy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring system (RTCGMS) devices in an intensive care unit (ICU) to determine whether the septic status of the patient has any influence on the accuracy of the RTCGMS. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In total, 41 patients on insulin therapy were included. Patients were monitored for 72 h using RTCGMS. Arterial blood glucose (ABG) samples were obtained following the protocol established in the ICU. The results were evaluated using paired values (excluding those used for calibration) with the performance assessed using numerical accuracy. Nonparametric tests were used to determine statistically significant differences in accuracy. RESULTS: In total, 956 ABG/RTCGMS pairs were analyzed. The overall median relative absolute difference (RAD) was 13.5%, and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) criteria were 68.1%. The median RADs reported for patients with septic shock, with sepsis, and without sepsis were 11.2%, 14.3%, and 16.3%, respectively (P<0.05). Measurements meeting the ISO criteria were 74.5%, 65.6%, and 63.7% for patients with septic shock, with sepsis, and without sepsis, respectively (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that the septic status of patients influenced the accuracy of the RTCGMS in the ICU. Accuracy was significantly better in patients with septic shock in comparison with the other patient cohorts.
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: Finlay A McAlister; Sumit R Majumdar; Sandra Blitz; Brian H Rowe; Jacques Romney; Thomas J Marrie Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Philip A Goldberg; Mark D Siegel; Robert S Sherwin; Joshua I Halickman; Michelle Lee; Valerie A Bailey; Sandy L Lee; James D Dziura; Silvio E Inzucchi Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 19.112
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
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
Authors: Matthew Signal; Aaron Le Compte; Deborah L Harris; Phil J Weston; Jane E Harding; J Geoffrey Chase Journal: Biomed Eng Online Date: 2012-08-06 Impact factor: 2.819