Literature DB >> 23566993

Acceptability and utility of the mySentry remote glucose monitoring system.

Kevin Kaiserman1, Bruce A Buckingham, Gnanagurudasan Prakasam, Fred Gunville, Robert H Slover, Yongyin Wang, Xuan Nguyen, John B Welsh.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The mySentry system (Medtronic Inc.) is the first to amplify and relay continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin pump data to a remote site within the house. Its usability and acceptability were evaluated in families having a child with type 1 diabetes.
METHODS: Each enrolled family included a child (age 7-17 years) who used a Paradigm REAL-Time Revel sensor-augmented insulin pump (Medtronic). After a 1-week run-in phase, families set up and used the mySentry system for a 3-week study phase. Opinion surveys were completed by parents, and pump and CGM data were collected and analyzed retrospectively. No formal hypothesis testing was performed, and the study was not powered to detect changes in nocturnal glycemia.
RESULTS: Thirty-five families completed the study. Enrolled children (61.1% female) had a mean (± standard deviation) age of 11.9 ± 2.70 years and a mean age at initiation of pump therapy of 7.1 ± 3.19 years. Baseline survey results indicated that most parents were fearful of their unawareness of their children's nocturnal glucose excursions. The mySentry system met the predefined acceptability criteria for general experience, product usability, and training materials. There were no unanticipated device-related adverse effects. Among children who experienced nocturnal hypo- or hyperglycemic episodes in both phases of the study, there was a trend toward less frequent and less prolonged episodes during mySentry use.
CONCLUSION: The mySentry system met all predefined criteria for acceptability and did not demonstrate safety issues. Alerting parents to abnormal glucose values or trends may attenuate nocturnal hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia by prompting appropriate and timely intervention.
© 2013 Diabetes Technology Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23566993      PMCID: PMC3737636          DOI: 10.1177/193229681300700211

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


  7 in total

Review 1.  Nocturnal hypoglycaemia in children: the effects on cognitive function.

Authors:  K A Matyka
Journal:  Diabetes Nutr Metab       Date:  2002-12

Review 2.  Hypoglycemia in insulin-treated diabetes: a case for increased vigilance.

Authors:  Jeff Unger; Christopher Parkin
Journal:  Postgrad Med       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 3.840

3.  Fear and other disturbances of severe hypoglycaemia in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Sam Nordfeldt; Johnny Ludvigsson
Journal:  J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 1.634

4.  Hypoglycemia: incidence and clinical predictors in a large population-based sample of children and adolescents with IDDM.

Authors:  E A Davis; B Keating; G C Byrne; M Russell; T W Jones
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 19.112

5.  Parental attitudes towards overnight closed-loop glucose control in children with type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  Daniela Elleri; Carlo L Acerini; Janet M Allen; Josephine Hayes; Claire Pesterfield; Malgorzata E Wilinska; David B Dunger; Roman Hovorka
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 6.118

6.  Confirmation of hypoglycemia in the "dead-in-bed" syndrome, as captured by a retrospective continuous glucose monitoring system.

Authors:  Robert J Tanenberg; Christopher A Newton; Almond J Drake
Journal:  Endocr Pract       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.443

7.  Nighttime caregiving behaviors among parents of young children with Type 1 diabetes: associations with illness characteristics and parent functioning.

Authors:  Maureen C Monaghan; Marisa E Hilliard; Fran R Cogen; Randi Streisand
Journal:  Fam Syst Health       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 1.950

  7 in total
  6 in total

1.  Continuous glucose monitoring in 2013.

Authors:  Tadej Battelino; Bruce W Bode
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 6.118

2.  Improved Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Pediatric Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Results from Two Studies.

Authors:  Lori Laffel
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 6.118

Review 3.  Influences on Technology Use and Efficacy in Type 1 Diabetes.

Authors:  Victoria Franklin
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2016-05-03

4.  Analysis of a remote system to closely monitor glycemia and insulin pump delivery--is this the beginning of a wireless transformation in diabetes management?

Authors:  Eda Cengiz
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2013-03-01

5.  Remote Patient Monitoring and Telemedicine in Neonatal and Pediatric Settings: Scoping Literature Review.

Authors:  Elise Davis; Farzan Sasangohar; Bita A Kash; Sohail R Shah
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2018-12-20       Impact factor: 5.428

6.  Glucose management for exercise using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) systems in type 1 diabetes: position statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) endorsed by JDRF and supported by the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Authors:  Othmar Moser; Michael C Riddell; Max L Eckstein; Peter Adolfsson; Rémi Rabasa-Lhoret; Louisa van den Boom; Pieter Gillard; Kirsten Nørgaard; Nick S Oliver; Dessi P Zaharieva; Tadej Battelino; Carine de Beaufort; Richard M Bergenstal; Bruce Buckingham; Eda Cengiz; Asma Deeb; Tim Heise; Simon Heller; Aaron J Kowalski; Lalantha Leelarathna; Chantal Mathieu; Christoph Stettler; Martin Tauschmann; Hood Thabit; Emma G Wilmot; Harald Sourij; Carmel E Smart; Peter G Jacobs; Richard M Bracken; Julia K Mader
Journal:  Pediatr Diabetes       Date:  2020-10-13       Impact factor: 4.866

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.