Tom Van Herpe1, Bart De Moor2, Greet Van den Berghe3, Dieter Mesotten3. 1. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT-SCD), iMINDS Medical Information Technologies, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven (Heverlee), Belgium. tom.vanherpe@esat.kuleuven.be. 2. Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT-SCD), iMINDS Medical Information Technologies, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven (Heverlee), Belgium. 3. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium;
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective and safe glycemic control in critically ill patients requires accurate glucose sensors and adequate insulin dosage calculators. The LOGIC-Insulin calculator for glycemic control has recently been validated in the LOGIC-1 randomized controlled trial. In this study, we aimed to determine the allowable error for intermittent and continuous glucose sensors, on the basis of the LOGIC-Insulin calculator. METHODS: A gaussian simulation model with a varying bias (0%-20%) and CV (-20% to +20%) simulated blood glucose values from the LOGIC-1 study (n = 149 patients) in 10 Monte Carlo steps. A clinical error grid system was developed to compare the simulated LOGIC-Insulin-directed intervention with the nominal intervention (0% bias, 0% CV). The severity of error measuring the clinical effect of the simulated LOGIC-Insulin intervention was graded as type B, C, and D errors. Type D errors were classified as acutely life-threatening (0% probability preferred). RESULTS: The probability of all types of errors was lower for continuous sensors compared with intermittent sensors. The maximum total error (TE), defined as the first TE introducing a type B/C/D error, was similar for both sensor types. To avoid type D errors, TEs <15.7% for intermittent sensors and <17.8% for continuous sensors were required. Mean absolute relative difference thresholds for type C errors were 7.1% for intermittent and 11.0% for continuous sensors. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous sensors had a lower probability for clinical errors than intermittent sensors at the same accuracy level. These simulations demonstrated the suitability of the LOGIC-Insulin control system for use with continuous, as well as intermittent, sensors.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Effective and safe glycemic control in critically ill patients requires accurate glucose sensors and adequate insulin dosage calculators. The LOGIC-Insulin calculator for glycemic control has recently been validated in the LOGIC-1 randomized controlled trial. In this study, we aimed to determine the allowable error for intermittent and continuous glucose sensors, on the basis of the LOGIC-Insulin calculator. METHODS: A gaussian simulation model with a varying bias (0%-20%) and CV (-20% to +20%) simulated blood glucose values from the LOGIC-1 study (n = 149 patients) in 10 Monte Carlo steps. A clinical error grid system was developed to compare the simulated LOGIC-Insulin-directed intervention with the nominal intervention (0% bias, 0% CV). The severity of error measuring the clinical effect of the simulated LOGIC-Insulin intervention was graded as type B, C, and D errors. Type D errors were classified as acutely life-threatening (0% probability preferred). RESULTS: The probability of all types of errors was lower for continuous sensors compared with intermittent sensors. The maximum total error (TE), defined as the first TE introducing a type B/C/D error, was similar for both sensor types. To avoid type D errors, TEs <15.7% for intermittent sensors and <17.8% for continuous sensors were required. Mean absolute relative difference thresholds for type C errors were 7.1% for intermittent and 11.0% for continuous sensors. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous sensors had a lower probability for clinical errors than intermittent sensors at the same accuracy level. These simulations demonstrated the suitability of the LOGIC-Insulin control system for use with continuous, as well as intermittent, sensors.
Authors: Roland N Dickerson; Vanessa J Kumpf; Angela L Bingham; Allison B Blackmer; Todd W Canada; Lingtak-Neander Chan; Sarah V Cogle; Anne M Tucker Journal: Hosp Pharm Date: 2018-05-30
Authors: Jean-Charles Preiser; J Geoffrey Chase; Roman Hovorka; Jeffrey I Joseph; James S Krinsley; Christophe De Block; Thomas Desaive; Luc Foubert; Pierre Kalfon; Ulrike Pielmeier; Tom Van Herpe; Jan Wernerman Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2016-11-01
Authors: J Geoffrey Chase; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jennifer L Dickson; Antoine Pironet; Yeong Shiong Chiew; Christopher G Pretty; Geoffrey M Shaw; Balazs Benyo; Knut Moeller; Soroush Safaei; Merryn Tawhai; Peter Hunter; Thomas Desaive Journal: Biomed Eng Online Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 2.819